Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd v Bellenville Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1513

Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd v Bellenville Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1513

The Court has power to grant a Mareva order if the respondent’s intended actions would effectively frustrate enforcement of a judgment, regardless of whether there is a subjective intention to do so. On the facts, the applicant has established a serious question to be tried and, given the first respondent’s imminent distribution of all assets, the preservation order is warranted but at a reduced amount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Mareva (asset Preservation) Order / Interlocutory
Outcome
Mareva order extended with variation
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'asset Preservation Order' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52']
['practice and Procedure'] ['mareva Injunction' 'asset Preservation Order' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52']

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 Interlocutory Mareva (asset Preservation) Order / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a Mareva (asset preservation) order should be made restraining the first respondent from dissipating proceeds of sale' 'Whether it is necessary to prove subjective intention to frustrate enforcement of a judgment to grant Mareva relief' 'Whether distribution of proceeds as dividends by a single-purpose company warrants intervention by asset preservation order']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has power to grant a Mareva order if the respondent’s intended actions would effectively frustrate enforcement of a judgment, regardless of whether there is a subjective intention to do so. On the facts, the applicant has established a serious question to be tried and, given the first respondent’s imminent distribution of all assets, the preservation order is warranted but at a reduced amount.

Court Disposition

Mareva order extended with variation

Orders

  • ['The first respondent is restrained, until further order, from dealing with $3,000,000 of the unencumbered proceeds of sale of specified property.' 'Costs of the application be reserved pending hearing and determination of application No W302 of 2002.' 'Liberty to any party to apply upon seven days written notice...