Temsign Pty Ltd & Ors v Biscen Pty Ltd & Ors Quick Sign Shops (Australia) Pty Ltd v J & J Bone Pty Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 616

Temsign Pty Ltd & Ors v Biscen Pty Ltd & Ors Quick Sign Shops (Australia) Pty Ltd v J & J Bone Pty Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 616

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge correctly stated the governing principles for Mareva injunctions, was entitled to conduct a broad factual inquiry into the applicants' access to assets and income, and was justified in expressing reservations about the applicants' information and the accountant's report. The fixing of $50,000 for living expenses and legal costs was a by-and-large discretionary assessment reasonably open on the material. Paragraph 2D, properly understood in context, did not finally remove the Court's jurisdiction to vary or discharge the interlocutory orders, but was an exceptional order directed to preventing further applications on the same or similar...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Mareva Injunction Orders / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal refused, with costs.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'variation or Discharge of Injunction' 'abuse of Process' 'living Expenses and Legal Costs From Frozen Funds']
['injunctions' 'trade Practices' 'civil Procedure'] ['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'variation or Discharge of Injunction' 'abuse of Process' 'living Expenses and Legal Costs From Frozen Funds']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Mareva Injunction Orders / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from orders limiting access to funds subject to Mareva injunctions to $50,000 for living expenses and legal costs.' 'Whether the primary judge erred by taking a broad, by-and-large approach in fixing the amount available from frozen funds.' 'Whether an order that the respondents to the principal proceedings not make further applications before trial to withdraw further funds was permissible.' 'Whether paragraph 2D deprived a judge of jurisdiction to vary or discharge interlocutory injunctions, or was properly understood as preventing abusive further applications on the same or similar material.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge correctly stated the governing principles for Mareva injunctions, was entitled to conduct a broad factual inquiry into the applicants' access to assets and income, and was justified in expressing reservations about the applicants' information and the accountant's report. The fixing of $50,000 for living expenses and legal costs was a by-and-large discretionary assessment reasonably open on the material. Paragraph 2D, properly understood in context, did not finally remove the Court's jurisdiction to vary or discharge the interlocutory orders, but was an exceptional order directed to preventing further applications on the same or similar...

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal refused, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Applications for leave to appeal refused, with costs.']