Goumas v McIntosh [2002] NSWSC 713

Goumas v McIntosh [2002] NSWSC 713

The orders sought should not be granted because they deny access to funds for legitimate living and legal expenses, contravening the purpose and proper bounds of Mareva relief; access for such purposes must be allowed.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Costas Goumas; Second Plaintiff: Leo Vescio; Third Plaintiff: Zina Vescio; First Defendant: Bruce McIntosh; Second Defendant: Vera McIntosh; Third Defendant: John Flowers; Fourth Defendant: Angela Flowers; First Cross Claimant: John Flowers; Second Cross Claimant: Angela Flowers; First Cross Defendant: Internet Wines Pty Limited; Second Cross Defendant: Bruce McIntosh; Third Cross Defendant: Vera McIntosh; Fourth Cross Defendant: Palm Beach Cellars & Food Supplies Pty Limited; Fifth Cross Defendant: Castlemoon Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Motion for Variation of Mareva Orders / Determination of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Reasonable Living Expenses, Variation of Asset Restraint Orders
Equity Mareva Injunction Reasonable Living Expenses Variation of Asset Restraint Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Costas Goumas

First Plaintiff

Leo Vescio

Second Plaintiff

Zina Vescio

Third Plaintiff

Bruce McIntosh

First Defendant

Vera McIntosh

Second Defendant

John Flowers

Third Defendant

Angela Flowers

Fourth Defendant

John Flowers

First Cross Claimant

Angela Flowers

Second Cross Claimant

Internet Wines Pty Limited

First Cross Defendant

Bruce McIntosh

Second Cross Defendant

Vera McIntosh

Third Cross Defendant

Palm Beach Cellars & Food Supplies Pty Limited

Fourth Cross Defendant

Castlemoon Pty Limited

Fifth Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion for Variation of Mareva Orders / Determination of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Mareva order be varied to impose an absolute restraint on funds without exceptions for living and legal expenses?
  2. 2 Are other assets available to the restrained parties for legitimate expenditures?
  3. 3 What exceptions are appropriate in Mareva orders?

Ratio Decidendi

The orders sought should not be granted because they deny access to funds for legitimate living and legal expenses, contravening the purpose and proper bounds of Mareva relief; access for such purposes must be allowed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • The orders sought for absolute restraint of funds were not granted; the notice of motion was dismissed.