Cook v Cook [2023] NSWSC 1132

Cook v Cook [2023] NSWSC 1132

The plaintiff established that the Washington judgment in its favour against the first defendant was prima facie capable of recognition and enforcement and that there was a danger the judgment would be unsatisfied, given the first defendant's apparent residence overseas, the evidence that the Coogee unit was his only Australian asset, the active PEXA workspace and imminent transfer without an undertaking, and evidence of prior conduct concerning transfer of disputed property in breach of orders. The Court therefore made a freezing order against the first defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for a Freezing Order in Proceedings for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment / Notice of Motion Filed 15 September 2023, Returnable Instanter
Outcome
Freezing order made against the first defendant until 5:00 pm on 20 September 2023; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments' 'prospective Judgment Debtor' 'dissipation of Assets']
['civil Procedure' 'private International Law'] ['freezing Orders' 'recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments' 'prospective Judgment Debtor' 'dissipation of Assets']

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 a Freezing Order in Proceedings for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment / Notice of Motion Filed 15 September 2023, Returnable Instanter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had established a sufficient prospect that the Washington judgment would be recognised or enforced by the Court.' 'Whether there was a danger that a judgment or prospective judgment would be wholly or partly unsatisfied because assets of the first defendant were removed from the jurisdiction, dissipated, dealt with or diminished in value.' 'Whether a freezing order should be made against the first defendant under r 25.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established that the Washington judgment in its favour against the first defendant was prima facie capable of recognition and enforcement and that there was a danger the judgment would be unsatisfied, given the first defendant's apparent residence overseas, the evidence that the Coogee unit was his only Australian asset, the active PEXA workspace and imminent transfer without an undertaking, and evidence of prior conduct concerning transfer of disputed property in breach of orders. The Court therefore made a freezing order against the first defendant.

Court Disposition

Freezing order made against the first defendant until 5:00 pm on 20 September 2023; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion dated 15 September 2023 be returnable instanter.' 'The time for service of the Notice of Motion and the supporting affidavits be abridged to 2:00 pm on 15 September 2023.' 'The plaintiff is to serve a copy of the Notice of Motion, the supporting affidavits and these orders on the first...