Macquarie Bank Ltd v Juno Holdings S.a.r.l [2015] NSWSC 919

Macquarie Bank Ltd v Juno Holdings S.a.r.l [2015] NSWSC 919

The stay was refused because, on the evidence, there was no more than a speculative possibility that the Bailiff would sell the Jupiter shares and realise sufficient proceeds to satisfy Macquarie's judgment debt, so it was not likely that the Amsterdam process would have any material effect on the New South Wales proceedings. Although some factors faintly supported a stay, Macquarie's undertaking as to costs and the remote prospect that the foreign execution would render the proceedings otiose compelled dismissal of the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Proceedings to Enforce a Foreign Judgment at Common Law; Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 19 June 2015; Freezing Order Dissolved by Consent; Stay Application Determined
Outcome
Stay refused; defendant's notice of motion dismissed subject to the resolved freezing order matters.
Legal Topics
['temporary Stay of Proceedings' 'foreign Judgment Enforcement at Common Law' 'execution Against Shares by Foreign Bailiff' 'freezing Order']
['practice and Procedure' 'private International Law' 'enforcement of Foreign Judgments'] ['temporary Stay of Proceedings' 'foreign Judgment Enforcement at Common Law' 'execution Against Shares by Foreign Bailiff' 'freezing Order']

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

Proceedings to Enforce a Foreign Judgment at Common Law; Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 19 June 2015; Freezing Order Dissolved by Consent; Stay Application Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be stayed until 11 September 2015 pending execution by the Bailiff of the District Court of Amsterdam against shares in Jupiter Holdings BV (or NV).' 'Whether the termination or progress of the Amsterdam execution process was likely to have a material effect on the New South Wales proceedings.' 'Whether practical considerations of commonsense and fairness favoured a temporary stay where related proceedings or execution steps were occurring overseas.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because, on the evidence, there was no more than a speculative possibility that the Bailiff would sell the Jupiter shares and realise sufficient proceeds to satisfy Macquarie's judgment debt, so it was not likely that the Amsterdam process would have any material effect on the New South Wales proceedings. Although some factors faintly supported a stay, Macquarie's undertaking as to costs and the remote prospect that the foreign execution would render the proceedings otiose compelled dismissal of the application.

Court Disposition

Stay refused; defendant's notice of motion dismissed subject to the resolved freezing order matters.

Orders

  • ["Subject to the matters set out at [2], the defendant's notice of motion of 19 June 2015 is dismissed." "The costs of the defendant's notice of motion of 19 June 2015 be the plaintiff's costs in the cause." 'Direct that by 13 July 2015 the plaintiff serve any proposed amended commercial list statement and any...