Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 406

Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 406

The stay was refused because the first and second respondents knew of the Vanuatu statutory provisions when Wilcox J made the Mareva disclosure order, did not explain why the point was not put then, showed no subsequent change in circumstances, and produced insufficient material to establish that compliance would require contravention of Vanuatu criminal law or expose an appropriate person to a real risk of prosecution. The proposed Vanuatu declaration would not determine whether the Federal Court order should be discharged. The further request for an extension was also refused because the respondents approached the Court only on the last day for compliance and the extension was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Stay of Mareva Asset Disclosure Order / Interlocutory Application After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs; application to extend time for compliance refused.
Legal Topics
['mareva Orders' 'asset Disclosure Affidavits' 'stay of Orders' 'foreign Illegality' 'vanuatu Company Confidentiality Obligations']
['civil Procedure' 'private International Law' 'company Law'] ['mareva Orders' 'asset Disclosure Affidavits' 'stay of Orders' 'foreign Illegality' 'vanuatu Company Confidentiality Obligations']

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

Notice of Motion for Stay of Mareva Asset Disclosure Order / Interlocutory Application After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether compliance by the first and second respondents with Order 6 requiring an affidavit disclosing assets should be stayed until 14 days after reasons for judgment in proposed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Vanuatu.' 'Whether the first and second respondents established that compliance with the Federal Court order would contravene s 125 of the International Companies Act No 32 of 1992 (Republic of Vanuatu) and expose a person to a real risk of prosecution.' "Whether time for compliance with Wilcox J's orders should be extended to allow advice about an appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the first and second respondents knew of the Vanuatu statutory provisions when Wilcox J made the Mareva disclosure order, did not explain why the point was not put then, showed no subsequent change in circumstances, and produced insufficient material to establish that compliance would require contravention of Vanuatu criminal law or expose an appropriate person to a real risk of prosecution. The proposed Vanuatu declaration would not determine whether the Federal Court order should be discharged. The further request for an extension was also refused because the respondents approached the Court only on the last day for compliance and the extension was not...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs; application to extend time for compliance refused.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion be dismissed with costs.']