B1 v B2 (No. 4) [2018] NSWDC 497

B1 v B2 (No. 4) [2018] NSWDC 497

The freezing orders should continue because the good arguable case element was conceded, the defendant's inconsistent evidence about her financial position meant the Court could have no confidence that she would not dissipate assets or place them beyond the plaintiff's reach, the plaintiff had made sufficiently full disclosure on the ex parte application, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation with variations allowing access to interest and making continuation conditional on the plaintiff complying with relevant child support, health insurance and school fee obligations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings Involving Freezing Orders / Application to Set Aside, Continue and Vary Ex Parte Freezing Orders Made on 26 April 2018
Outcome
Freezing orders continued until further order subject to variations; the defendant's application to set aside the orders was refused in substance; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Disclosure' 'good Arguable Case' 'risk That Judgment Will Be Unsatisfied' 'balance of Convenience' 'inconsistent Evidence in Family Disputes' 'child Support, Medical Insurance and School Fees']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'family Law'] ['freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Disclosure' 'good Arguable Case' 'risk That Judgment Will Be Unsatisfied' 'balance of Convenience' 'inconsistent Evidence in Family Disputes' 'child Support, Medical Insurance and School Fees']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings Involving Freezing Orders / Application to Set Aside, Continue and Vary Ex Parte Freezing Orders Made on 26 April 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case for the purposes of freezing orders.' 'Whether there was a danger or likelihood that any prospective judgment would be wholly or partly unsatisfied.' 'Whether the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts on the ex parte application.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured setting aside, continuing or varying the freezing orders.' 'Whether the freezing orders should be varied to permit the defendant to receive interest and to require the plaintiff to comply with child-related financial obligations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing orders should continue because the good arguable case element was conceded, the defendant's inconsistent evidence about her financial position meant the Court could have no confidence that she would not dissipate assets or place them beyond the plaintiff's reach, the plaintiff had made sufficiently full disclosure on the ex parte application, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation with variations allowing access to interest and making continuation conditional on the plaintiff complying with relevant child support, health insurance and school fee obligations.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders continued until further order subject to variations; the defendant's application to set aside the orders was refused in substance; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Freezing orders made on 26 April 2018, subject to the variations set out in Short Minutes of Order to be prepared by the parties, to continue until further order.' 'The parties are to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting orders in relation to the payment of interest on the sum of $250,000 to the defendant...