ASIC v. Maxwell & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1264

ASIC v. Maxwell & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1264

The application to vary the Mareva injunctions was dismissed because the relevant Defendants had not produced evidence demonstrating the equity in the properties or the commercial viability of the proposed developments, and therefore had not shown that there was no substantial risk of dissipation or loss of the assets if the injunctions were lifted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Corporations Proceeding Involving Mareva Injunctions Over Real Estate Assets / Defendants' Interlocutory Application to Vary or Dissolve Existing Mareva Injunctions
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'speculative Real Estate Development' 'public Investment Solicitation' 'dissipation or Loss of Assets' 'interlocutory Relief']
['corporations' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['mareva Injunction' 'speculative Real Estate Development' 'public Investment Solicitation' 'dissipation or Loss of Assets' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Corporations Proceeding Involving Mareva Injunctions Over Real Estate Assets / Defendants' Interlocutory Application to Vary or Dissolve Existing Mareva Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Mareva injunctions restraining dealings with the Ettalong, Soldiers Point, Gosford, Newport and Liverpool properties should be lifted or varied.' 'Whether the relevant Defendants showed by evidence that there was no substantial risk of dissipation or loss of the relevant assets if they were permitted to proceed with the proposed developments.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the Mareva injunctions was dismissed because the relevant Defendants had not produced evidence demonstrating the equity in the properties or the commercial viability of the proposed developments, and therefore had not shown that there was no substantial risk of dissipation or loss of the assets if the injunctions were lifted.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application to vary the Mareva injunctions is dismissed.' 'The costs of the application are to be paid by the Tenth to Fifteenth and the Twenty-first Defendants.']