Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Giraffe World Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1476

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Giraffe World Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1476

The evidence did not sufficiently show that Mrs Misuma's liability to Giraffe had been extinguished. The affidavit relied upon was not admitted as Mrs Misuma was not available for cross-examination. The preservation of property through continuation of the mareva injunction is necessary, and no variation should be made to the existing orders.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Giraffe World Pty Ltd [ACN 078 012 521] (in Liquidation); Second Respondent: Akihiko Misuma; Third Respondent: Robin Han; Fourth Respondent: Mark Scotte; Sixth Respondent: Lucille Orr; Yukari Misuma
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Orders; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Mareva injunction and related orders continued; interlocutory orders made as per short minutes; matter adjourned for directions.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Preservation of Property, Ancillary Orders, Section 87 a Trade Practices Act
Competition and Consumer Law Mareva Injunction Preservation of Property Ancillary Orders Section 87 a Trade Practices Act

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Giraffe World Pty Ltd [ACN 078 012 521] (in Liquidation)

First Respondent

Akihiko Misuma

Second Respondent

Robin Han

Third Respondent

Mark Scotte

Fourth Respondent

Lucille Orr

Sixth Respondent

Yukari Misuma

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Orders; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders should be made under s 87A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to preserve property that may be available for recovery in potential proceedings against Giraffe World Pty Ltd and Akihiko Misuma
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Misuma holds property on behalf of a person who may be liable under those proceedings
  3. 3 Whether maintenance of the mareva injunction is justified on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not sufficiently show that Mrs Misuma's liability to Giraffe had been extinguished. The affidavit relied upon was not admitted as Mrs Misuma was not available for cross-examination. The preservation of property through continuation of the mareva injunction is necessary, and no variation should be made to the existing orders.

Court Disposition

Mareva injunction and related orders continued; interlocutory orders made as per short minutes; matter adjourned for directions.

Orders

  • Second and Third Respondents and Yukari Misuma to deliver affidavits of assets, liabilities, and property within 14 days of notice of order;
  • Leave for Applicant to notify financial institutions of the order;