Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ostrava Equities Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 425

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ostrava Equities Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 425

Interim asset freezing orders previously made must be discharged as they were made without power under s 1323(3), absent an application for appointment of receiver as required by s 1323(1)(h). ASIC is granted leave to amend its application to seek a receiver, and the hearing is adjourned for ASIC to provide further evidence. Fresh freezing orders are not made due to lack of evidence of immediate risk of dissipation. Travel restriction orders are continued due to investigative needs. Affidavit evidence, including hearsay for risk assessment purposes, is admissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Corporations/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Hearing/adjudication of Interim Orders
Outcome
Interim asset freezing orders discharged; leave granted for ASIC to amend application; adjournment granted; travel restriction orders continued; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interim Orders' 'freezing Orders' 'appointment of Receiver' 'travel Restrictions' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence']
['corporations' 'practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['interim Orders' 'freezing Orders' 'appointment of Receiver' 'travel Restrictions' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence']

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

Corporations/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Hearing/adjudication of Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim freezing orders made under s 1323(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) should be extended or discharged' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the originating application to seek a receiver under s 1323(1)(h)' 'Whether the hearing of the substantive application should be adjourned' 'Whether travel restriction orders should remain' 'Admissibility of affidavit evidence in interlocutory proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

Interim asset freezing orders previously made must be discharged as they were made without power under s 1323(3), absent an application for appointment of receiver as required by s 1323(1)(h). ASIC is granted leave to amend its application to seek a receiver, and the hearing is adjourned for ASIC to provide further evidence. Fresh freezing orders are not made due to lack of evidence of immediate risk of dissipation. Travel restriction orders are continued due to investigative needs. Affidavit evidence, including hearsay for risk assessment purposes, is admissible.

Court Disposition

Interim asset freezing orders discharged; leave granted for ASIC to amend application; adjournment granted; travel restriction orders continued; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Orders 10 and 11 of the Orders made on 17 April 2015 and extended on 21 April 2015 and 4 May 2015 be discharged.' 'Plaintiff has leave to file and serve a Further Amended Originating Process to include an application for order under section 1323(1)(h).' 'Further affidavits by Plaintiff to be filed and served by 18...