Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Top Snack Foods Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 380

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Top Snack Foods Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 380

The Court had power to order the third respondent to provide the financial disclosure affidavit, whether or not a Mareva injunction was presently sought. The information was relevant to any later Mareva application, and the evidence concerning the sale of properties, the back-dated and unusual mortgage arrangements, timing of dealings after the applicant's complaints and threatened proceedings, absence of corroborating witnesses, and rapid disposition of proceeds disclosed a sufficiently substantial danger that the third respondent may dispose of assets to defeat any judgment. The discretionary order was therefore warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief, Including Mareva Injunction Related Relief and Financial Disclosure Affidavit / Notice of Motion; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'mareva Injunction' 'asset Disclosure' 'federal Court Powers' 'risk of Dissipation of Assets']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'mareva Injunction' 'asset Disclosure' 'federal Court Powers' 'risk of Dissipation of Assets']

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

Application for Interlocutory Relief, Including Mareva Injunction Related Relief and Financial Disclosure Affidavit / Notice of Motion; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had power to order the third respondent to swear an affidavit disclosing his financial status.' 'Whether the affidavit sought was relevant to any subsequent application for a Mareva injunction.' 'Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe there was a danger that the third respondent may dispose of assets in order to defeat any judgment that might be obtained against him.' 'Whether the danger was sufficiently substantial to warrant the discretionary order sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had power to order the third respondent to provide the financial disclosure affidavit, whether or not a Mareva injunction was presently sought. The information was relevant to any later Mareva application, and the evidence concerning the sale of properties, the back-dated and unusual mortgage arrangements, timing of dealings after the applicant's complaints and threatened proceedings, absence of corroborating witnesses, and rapid disposition of proceeds disclosed a sufficiently substantial danger that the third respondent may dispose of assets to defeat any judgment. The discretionary order was therefore warranted.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['A full affidavit be sworn and served by the third respondent on or before 23 May 1997 setting out full details as at 16 May 1997 of bank, building society or other financial institution accounts in his name or under his control, including account numbers and balances.' 'The affidavit must state the name and...