Warea Pty Ltd & Anor v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 74

Warea Pty Ltd & Anor v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 74

Prima facie, there is a close connection between Mr. Armstrong (second respondent) and the Armstrong Trust; although the case against the fifth respondent is marginal, it is sufficient to warrant the injunction to preserve trust assets pending resolution, considering lack of evidence and non-cooperation from respondents.

Parties
First Applicant: WAREA PTY. LTD.; Second Applicant: STRIPE LIMITED; First Respondent: WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY LTD trading as DELTRITE FINANCIAL SERVICES; Second Respondent: WILLIAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG; Third Respondent: LISA N. VIRBA; Fourth Respondent: ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS; Fifth Respondent: JOAN LENORE CECELIA ARMSTRONG
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Mareva Injunction and Interlocutory Orders / Interlocutory Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Mareva injunction continued against fifth respondent (in her capacity as trustee of Armstrong Trust) pending trial or further order; additional procedural orders made.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Trade Practices Act, Interlocutory Relief, Injunctions
Civil Procedure Equity Mareva Injunction Trade Practices Act Interlocutory Relief Injunctions

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAREA PTY. LTD.

First Applicant

STRIPE LIMITED

Second Applicant

WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY LTD trading as DELTRITE FINANCIAL SERVICES

First Respondent

WILLIAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG

Second Respondent

LISA N. VIRBA

Third Respondent

ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS

Fourth Respondent

JOAN LENORE CECELIA ARMSTRONG

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Mareva Injunction and Interlocutory Orders / Interlocutory Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court has jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunction against respondent not joined for principal relief
  2. 2 Whether sufficient prima facie case exists against the fifth respondent for granting Mareva injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Prima facie, there is a close connection between Mr. Armstrong (second respondent) and the Armstrong Trust; although the case against the fifth respondent is marginal, it is sufficient to warrant the injunction to preserve trust assets pending resolution, considering lack of evidence and non-cooperation from respondents.

Court Disposition

Mareva injunction continued against fifth respondent (in her capacity as trustee of Armstrong Trust) pending trial or further order; additional procedural orders made.

Orders

  • Fifth respondent restrained until judgment following trial or earlier order from dealing with real property held by her in Australia as trustee of Armstrong Trust.
  • Fifth respondent restrained from withdrawing moneys from bank accounts operated as trustee of Armstrong Trust.