Abignano Nominees Pty Limited v Altius Pty Limited (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1493

Abignano Nominees Pty Limited v Altius Pty Limited (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1493

The plaintiff has established a good arguable case on the available evidence; there is a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's only significant asset; the orders sought are limited and do not impose undue hardship arising from a notice requirement. The balance of convenience favours making the freezing orders sought.

Parties
Applicant: Abignano Nominees Pty Limited; Respondent: Altius Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application for an Interim Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing order made; procedural orders for pleadings; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Interim Preservation, Freezing Orders, Requirements for Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Interim Preservation Freezing Orders Requirements for Freezing Orders

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

Parties

Abignano Nominees Pty Limited

Applicant

Altius Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application for an Interim Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case for the making of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk that the judgment would not be satisfied due to dissipation of assets
  3. 3 Where the balance of convenience lies in granting or refusing the order

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff has established a good arguable case on the available evidence; there is a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's only significant asset; the orders sought are limited and do not impose undue hardship arising from a notice requirement. The balance of convenience favours making the freezing orders sought.

Court Disposition

Freezing order made; procedural orders for pleadings; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The defendant, and its sole director, Mr Paul Peterkin, not further encumber the Pasadena property without 7 days' written notice to the plaintiff's solicitor.
  • The defendant, and its sole director, not pay or cause to be paid the proceeds of any sale, compulsory acquisition, or other disposal of the Property, up to $951,444.10 without 7 days' written notice.