Aryzta Australia Pty Limited v Jakimovski (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 48

Aryzta Australia Pty Limited v Jakimovski (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 48

The losses claimed by the second defendant were not caused by the making of the freezing order but rather by other factors, including prior financial position, loss of employment, and inability to demonstrate loss of profit. Furthermore, there was no evidentiary basis to establish the alleged losses or that loans would have been available absent the freezing order.

Parties
Plaintiff: Aryzta Australia Pty Limited; First Defendant: Suzana Jakimovski; Second Defendant: Thomas Jakimovski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to Undertaking as to Damages / Notice of Motion by Second Defendant for Compensation
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Undertaking as to Damages, Compensation, Losses Not Caused by Freezing Order
Equity Practice and Procedure Freezing Order Undertaking as to Damages Compensation Losses Not Caused by 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aryzta Australia Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Suzana Jakimovski

First Defendant

Thomas Jakimovski

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Pursuant to Undertaking as to Damages / Notice of Motion by Second Defendant for Compensation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether second defendant suffered compensable loss caused by freezing order
  2. 2 Whether losses claimed were caused by the freezing order or by other factors
  3. 3 Whether loss of income can be claimed instead of loss of profit

Ratio Decidendi

The losses claimed by the second defendant were not caused by the making of the freezing order but rather by other factors, including prior financial position, loss of employment, and inability to demonstrate loss of profit. Furthermore, there was no evidentiary basis to establish the alleged losses or that loans would have been available absent the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff

Orders

  • Order that the second defendant's notice of motion filed on 27 April 2015 be dismissed.
  • Order that the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion.