Commissioner of Taxation v Interhealth Energies Pty Ltd as Trustee of the Interhealth Superannuation Fund [2011] FCA 1365

Commissioner of Taxation v Interhealth Energies Pty Ltd as Trustee of the Interhealth Superannuation Fund [2011] FCA 1365

Given the serious question to be tried regarding breaches of the undertaking provided by Interhealth Energies Pty Ltd as trustee, and to preserve the efficacy of any final relief potentially available under s 262A(4) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth), it is necessary and desirable to order the preservation of moneys payable as proceeds from the sale of units in the Pelican Waters Unit Trust, to restrain dissipation or diversion of those moneys, and to restrain the giving of directions or arrangements that would inhibit such payments. Orders to this effect are justified as protective, but the application against Merthyr Law is dismissed so as not to interfere with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Prior to the Judgment in Principal Proceeding
Outcome
Interlocutory freezing/injunctive orders made principally against the second and third respondents, application against the fourth respondent dismissed, and costs of the fourth respondent to be paid by the applicant.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'trust Law' 'bankruptcy and Superannuation Entitlements']
['superannuation' 'injunctions' 'practice and Procedure'] ['freezing Orders' 'trust Law' 'bankruptcy and Superannuation Entitlements']

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

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Prior to the Judgment in Principal Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether freezing/injunctive orders should be made to preserve funds payable to the second respondent pending the determination of the principal proceeding' 'Whether the orders are necessary or desirable to protect the regulatory and beneficiary interests under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)' 'Whether the application against the fourth respondent (Merthyr Law Pty Ltd) should be dismissed' "Whether the Commissioner should pay the fourth respondent's costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the serious question to be tried regarding breaches of the undertaking provided by Interhealth Energies Pty Ltd as trustee, and to preserve the efficacy of any final relief potentially available under s 262A(4) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth), it is necessary and desirable to order the preservation of moneys payable as proceeds from the sale of units in the Pelican Waters Unit Trust, to restrain dissipation or diversion of those moneys, and to restrain the giving of directions or arrangements that would inhibit such payments. Orders to this effect are justified as protective, but the application against Merthyr Law is dismissed so as not to interfere with...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory freezing/injunctive orders made principally against the second and third respondents, application against the fourth respondent dismissed, and costs of the fourth respondent to be paid by the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The second respondent must preserve any moneys payable to it from the sale of its units in the Pelican Waters Unit Trust or from any other party, including Probiotic Technologies Pty Ltd.' 'The second respondent not to pay, disperse, encumber or dispose of any such moneys except into a designated bank account.'...