Thompson v White [2003] NSWSC 401

Thompson v White [2003] NSWSC 401

Given the interlocutory nature and urgency of prior proceedings, and that directions had been made for a statement of the defendants' substantive claims, the doctrine in Anshun does not preclude the present application; the first defendant has made out an arguable case for constructive trust or debt and the risk of dissipation justifies further interlocutory relief to freeze funds pending determination of rights.

Parties
Plaintiff: Byron Ward Thompson; First Defendant: Julian John White; Second Defendant: Romeo Medina Libut
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Further Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Further interlocutory relief granted.
Legal Topics
Estoppel, Former Adjudication, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Constructive Trust, Mareva Relief, Joint Venture, Interlocutory Injunction
Equity Estoppel Former Adjudication Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Constructive Trust Mareva Relief +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Byron Ward Thompson

Plaintiff

Julian John White

First Defendant

Romeo Medina Libut

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Further Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether current application amounts to an abuse of process under the principles in Henderson v Henderson and Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd by seeking orders inconsistent with previous interlocutory consent orders
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant has made out a sufficient case for interlocutory injunctive relief on proprietary or Mareva grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Given the interlocutory nature and urgency of prior proceedings, and that directions had been made for a statement of the defendants' substantive claims, the doctrine in Anshun does not preclude the present application; the first defendant has made out an arguable case for constructive trust or debt and the risk of dissipation justifies further interlocutory relief to freeze funds pending determination of rights.

Court Disposition

Further interlocutory relief granted.

Orders

  • Out of the proceeds of settlement of the sale of the Seaforth property an additional sum of $200,000 be deposited into the controlled moneys account already established, making a total principal sum of $1,000,000 in that account.
  • Plaintiff by himself, his servants and agents restrained from selling or disposing of any interest in the Somersby property until further order.