ASIC v Adler & Ors [2001] NSWSC 451

ASIC v Adler & Ors [2001] NSWSC 451

The ex parte asset preservation orders were declined because the general practice of the Court is not to make ex parte orders depriving affected parties of a hearing except in exceptional circumstances, ASIC gave no undertaking as to damages, the orders sought were extraordinarily far reaching, and the evidence did not indicate a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets to justify orders without first hearing the defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Asset Preservation Orders Under Ss1323 and 1324 of the Corporations Law / Ex Parte Application Declined; Undertakings Without Admissions Later Accepted
Outcome
Ex parte orders declined; undertakings without admissions accepted.
Legal Topics
['asset Preservation Orders' 'ex Parte Applications' 'asic Investigations' 'dissipation of Assets' 'prima Facie Case' 'receivership' 'surrender of Passports' 'undertaking as to Damages']
['corporations' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['asset Preservation Orders' 'ex Parte Applications' 'asic Investigations' 'dissipation of Assets' 'prima Facie Case' 'receivership' 'surrender of Passports' 'undertaking as to Damages']

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 Asset Preservation Orders Under Ss1323 and 1324 of the Corporations Law / Ex Parte Application Declined; Undertakings Without Admissions Later Accepted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether asset preservation orders under ss1323 and 1324 of the Corporations Law should be made on an ex parte basis.' 'The jurisdictional and discretionary basis for asset preservation orders sought by ASIC.' 'The relevance of risk of dissipation of assets and a reasonably persuasive case to the exercise of discretion.' 'Whether orders sought by ASIC were proportionate and justified without first hearing the defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte asset preservation orders were declined because the general practice of the Court is not to make ex parte orders depriving affected parties of a hearing except in exceptional circumstances, ASIC gave no undertaking as to damages, the orders sought were extraordinarily far reaching, and the evidence did not indicate a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets to justify orders without first hearing the defendants.

Court Disposition

Ex parte orders declined; undertakings without admissions accepted.

Orders

  • ['Ex parte orders declined.' 'Undertakings without admissions accepted.' 'Leave granted to all parties to approach the Court at short notice.']