Australian Securities & Investments Commission; In the Matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 099 071 968 v Carey (No 14) [2007] FCA 310

Australian Securities & Investments Commission; In the Matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 099 071 968 v Carey (No 14) [2007] FCA 310

The Court found that a freezing order or receivership under s 1323 was not necessary or desirable on the evidence: there was insufficient risk of dissipation of Rold's assets, and the evidence did not show real or immediate risk justifying intervention; s 23 could not be used as a stand-alone source of jurisdiction for freezing orders in absence of grounds under s 1323.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: Norman Phillip Carey; Second Defendant: Graeme John Rundle; Third Defendant: Cedric Richard Palmer Beck; Fourth Defendant: John Norman Dixon; Fifth Defendant: Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 099 071 968; Sixth Defendant: Westpoint Realty Pty Ltd ACN 050 218 954; Seventh Defendant: Bowesco Pty Ltd ACN 008 915 357; Eighth Defendant: Redchime Pty Ltd ACN 117 947 805; Ninth Defendant: Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd ACN 115 507 232; Tenth Defendant: Silkchime Pty Ltd ACN 066 849 429; Eleventh Defendant: Rold Corporation ACN 009 358 276; Twelfth Defendant: Healthcare Properties Pty Ltd ACN 075 401 955
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Corporations Application for Freezing Orders / Final Orders on Application for Freezing Orders and Receivership
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Receivership, Jurisdiction, Section 1323 Corporations Act, Section 23 Federal Court Act, Interlocutory Relief
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Receivership Jurisdiction Section 1323 Corporations Act Section 23 Federal Court Act Interlocutory Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Norman Phillip Carey

First Defendant

Graeme John Rundle

Second Defendant

Cedric Richard Palmer Beck

Third Defendant

John Norman Dixon

Fourth Defendant

Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 099 071 968

Fifth Defendant

Westpoint Realty Pty Ltd ACN 050 218 954

Sixth Defendant

Bowesco Pty Ltd ACN 008 915 357

Seventh Defendant

Redchime Pty Ltd ACN 117 947 805

Eighth Defendant

Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd ACN 115 507 232

Ninth Defendant

Silkchime Pty Ltd ACN 066 849 429

Tenth Defendant

Rold Corporation ACN 009 358 276

Eleventh Defendant

Healthcare Properties Pty Ltd ACN 075 401 955

Twelfth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Corporations Application for Freezing Orders / Final Orders on Application for Freezing Orders and Receivership

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has power to make a freezing (Mareva) order in an application under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether grounds for appointment of receivers under s 1323 have been demonstrated
  3. 3 Whether s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act can be relied upon to grant freezing orders in aid of jurisdiction under s 1323

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that a freezing order or receivership under s 1323 was not necessary or desirable on the evidence: there was insufficient risk of dissipation of Rold's assets, and the evidence did not show real or immediate risk justifying intervention; s 23 could not be used as a stand-alone source of jurisdiction for freezing orders in absence of grounds under s 1323.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application as against the eleventh defendant is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the eleventh defendant's costs of the application.