Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 441

Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd [2005] FCA 441

The stay was refused because the first and second respondents did not act promptly to challenge the disclosure of assets order, waiting until after the time for filing affidavits had expired and three weeks after the orders before filing an application for leave to appeal; the Vanuatu legislation argument was not persuasive and the supporting evidence was inadequate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Disclosure of Assets Order / Application by the First and Second Respondents for a Stay Pending Determination by the Full Court of Appeals or Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'mareva Orders' 'disclosure of Assets' 'delay' 'application for Leave to Appeal']
['civil Procedure'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'mareva Orders' 'disclosure of Assets' 'delay' 'application for Leave to Appeal']

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 Seeking Stay of Disclosure of Assets Order / Application by the First and Second Respondents for a Stay Pending Determination by the Full Court of Appeals or Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the disclosure of assets order made on 22 March 2005 should be stayed insofar as it related to the first and second respondents pending Full Court determination of their appeals or application for leave to appeal.' "Whether the first and second respondents' delay in challenging the disclosure of assets order made it inappropriate to grant a stay." 'Whether the argument based on s 125 of the International Companies Act of the Republic of Vanuatu and the evidence filed supported the stay application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the first and second respondents did not act promptly to challenge the disclosure of assets order, waiting until after the time for filing affidavits had expired and three weeks after the orders before filing an application for leave to appeal; the Vanuatu legislation argument was not persuasive and the supporting evidence was inadequate.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed by the first and second respondents on 15 April 2005 be dismissed with costs.']