Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong (No 3) [2009] FCA 1154

Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong (No 3) [2009] FCA 1154

The Court has jurisdiction to order asset preservation to prevent frustration of a joint and several costs order, even prior to costs quantification, where evidence shows actual dissipation of assets by a respondent intending to evade enforcement.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Communications and Media Authority; First Respondent: Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong; Second Respondent: Winning Big Pty Ltd ACN 121 026 793; Third Respondent: Jobspy Pty Ltd ACN 112 801 073; Fourth Respondent: Simon Anthony Owen; Fifth Respondent: Tarek Andreas Salcedo; Sixth Respondent: Scott Mark Moles; Seventh Respondent: Glenn Christopher Maughan; Eighth Respondent: Scott Gregory Phillips
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Asset Preservation (mareva) Order / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application Following Default Judgment
Outcome
Asset preservation (Mareva) order granted against the Fourth Respondent; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Asset Preservation, Costs Orders, Jurisdiction of Federal Court, Ex Parte Applications
Practice and Procedure Mareva Injunction Asset Preservation Costs Orders Jurisdiction of Federal Court Ex Parte Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Communications and Media Authority

Applicant

Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong

First Respondent

Winning Big Pty Ltd ACN 121 026 793

Second Respondent

Jobspy Pty Ltd ACN 112 801 073

Third Respondent

Simon Anthony Owen

Fourth Respondent

Tarek Andreas Salcedo

Fifth Respondent

Scott Mark Moles

Sixth Respondent

Glenn Christopher Maughan

Seventh Respondent

Scott Gregory Phillips

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Asset Preservation (mareva) Order / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of an as yet unquantified costs order
  2. 2 Whether circumstances justify the asset preservation order against respondent prior to taxation of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction to order asset preservation to prevent frustration of a joint and several costs order, even prior to costs quantification, where evidence shows actual dissipation of assets by a respondent intending to evade enforcement.

Court Disposition

Asset preservation (Mareva) order granted against the Fourth Respondent; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Application for asset preservation order heard ex parte and granted.
  • Respondent Simon Anthony Owen restrained from removing, disposing of or diminishing value of assets in Australia up to AUD$150,000.