Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd v Naaman [2024] NSWCA 265

Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd v Naaman [2024] NSWCA 265

There was no reasonably arguable error in the primary judge’s refusal to discharge freezing and asset preservation orders on the basis of a $3.6 million payment into court, as that amount was found inadequate, applicants did not suggest a higher or alternative sum, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice supported continuation of asset restraints; similarly, temporary removal of the caveat on specified terms to permit refinancing, without alternative security, was within discretion and imposed no manifestly unjust or unreasonable conditions.

Parties
First Applicant: Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Peter Sleiman; Third Applicant: Tony Sleiman; Fourth Applicant: Powerhouse Corporation Pty Ltd; Fifth Applicant: RHG Nominees Pty Ltd; Sixth Applicant: RHG Properties Pty Ltd; Seventh Applicant: Connells Point Holdings Pty Ltd; Eighth Applicant: Angela Michael; Ninth Applicant: Jake Sleiman; Tenth Applicant: Grant Royal Nominees Pty Ltd; Eleventh Applicant: RHG Trading Pty Ltd; Twelfth Applicant: Hotel Grand Holdings Pty Ltd; Thirteenth Applicant: Royal Granville Operations Pty Ltd; Respondent: Anthony Naaman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused and summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Preservation, Injunctions, Caveats, Interlocutory Appeals
Civil Procedure Equity Property Law Freezing Orders Asset Preservation Injunctions Caveats Interlocutory Appeals

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Peter Sleiman

Second Applicant

Tony Sleiman

Third Applicant

Powerhouse Corporation Pty Ltd

Fourth Applicant

RHG Nominees Pty Ltd

Fifth Applicant

RHG Properties Pty Ltd

Sixth Applicant

Connells Point Holdings Pty Ltd

Seventh Applicant

Angela Michael

Eighth Applicant

Jake Sleiman

Ninth Applicant

Grant Royal Nominees Pty Ltd

Tenth Applicant

RHG Trading Pty Ltd

Eleventh Applicant

Hotel Grand Holdings Pty Ltd

Twelfth Applicant

Royal Granville Operations Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Applicant

Anthony Naaman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to discharge asset preservation and freezing orders upon payment of $3.6 million into court
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in imposing conditions on the temporary removal of a caveat to allow refinancing
  3. 3 Whether the amount of security offered was adequate and whether the court was required to determine a reasonable sum for payment into court

Ratio Decidendi

There was no reasonably arguable error in the primary judge’s refusal to discharge freezing and asset preservation orders on the basis of a $3.6 million payment into court, as that amount was found inadequate, applicants did not suggest a higher or alternative sum, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice supported continuation of asset restraints; similarly, temporary removal of the caveat on specified terms to permit refinancing, without alternative security, was within discretion and imposed no manifestly unjust or unreasonable conditions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused and summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • Applicants to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.