Apple Computer Australia Pty Limited v George Mekrizis & Ors [2002] NSWSC 393

Apple Computer Australia Pty Limited v George Mekrizis & Ors [2002] NSWSC 393

The plaintiff established a strong prima facie case against the 6th defendant and the evidence, including the circumstances of the Crows Nest property sale, the late disclosure of the alleged second unregistered mortgage, the settlement distribution issues, and the 6th defendant's involvement in instructions about cheques, supported an inference that there was reason to believe he had assets and might take steps to make them unavailable. With no evidence of particular prejudice to the 6th defendant, the balance of convenience strongly favoured maintaining the status quo, continuing the Mareva relief and requiring asset disclosure.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunctive Relief / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Seeking Continuation of Mareva Relief Against the 6th Defendant, Asset Disclosure and Costs
Outcome
Mareva relief against the 6th defendant continued; asset disclosure and costs ordered against the 6th defendant.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'asset Disclosure' 'balance of Convenience' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'asset Disclosure' 'balance of Convenience' 'costs']

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

Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunctive Relief / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Seeking Continuation of Mareva Relief Against the 6th Defendant, Asset Disclosure and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the existing Mareva injunctive relief against the 6th defendant should be continued or discharged.' 'Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie cause of action against the 6th defendant.' 'Whether there was a danger that assets would be removed, disposed of or otherwise dealt with so that any judgment could not be satisfied.' 'Whether the 6th defendant should be ordered to disclose the nature, value and whereabouts of his assets.' "Whether the 6th defendant should pay the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion insofar as it related to him."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established a strong prima facie case against the 6th defendant and the evidence, including the circumstances of the Crows Nest property sale, the late disclosure of the alleged second unregistered mortgage, the settlement distribution issues, and the 6th defendant's involvement in instructions about cheques, supported an inference that there was reason to believe he had assets and might take steps to make them unavailable. With no evidence of particular prejudice to the 6th defendant, the balance of convenience strongly favoured maintaining the status quo, continuing the Mareva relief and requiring asset disclosure.

Court Disposition

Mareva relief against the 6th defendant continued; asset disclosure and costs ordered against the 6th defendant.

Orders

  • ["The 6th defendant file and serve on or before 4.00pm on 15th May 2002 one or more affidavits which (a) disclose with particularity the nature and extent of the 6th defendant's assets as at the date of swearing the affidavit; (b) discloses the value of the said assets; and (c) discloses the present situation, place...