Crushing Services International Pty Ltd v Jubilee Energy Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 9

Crushing Services International Pty Ltd v Jubilee Energy Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 9

On the evidence, there is a good arguable case for misleading or deceptive conduct by the first respondent and involvement by the second respondent; evidence of business practices and false documentation indicates a real risk of asset dissipation; freezing orders are justified to prevent frustration of potential judgment.

Parties
Applicant: Crushing Services International Pty Ltd ACN 069 303 377; First Respondent: Jubilee Energy Pty Ltd ACN 119 717 485; Second Respondent: Andrew Rymer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Freezing Order / Interlocutory (application and Order Prior to Opposed Hearing)
Outcome
Freezing orders made against first and second respondents; costs reserved to return date.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Trusts, Contract Law
Commercial Law Equity Consumer Protection Freezing Orders Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Trusts Contract Law

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crushing Services International Pty Ltd ACN 069 303 377

Applicant

Jubilee Energy Pty Ltd ACN 119 717 485

First Respondent

Andrew Rymer

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application for Freezing Order / Interlocutory (application and Order Prior to Opposed Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conduct by first respondent was misleading or deceptive under s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether second respondent was knowingly involved in misleading or deceptive conduct or liable in deceit
  3. 3 Whether freezing order should be made due to risk of asset dissipation

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, there is a good arguable case for misleading or deceptive conduct by the first respondent and involvement by the second respondent; evidence of business practices and false documentation indicates a real risk of asset dissipation; freezing orders are justified to prevent frustration of potential judgment.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders made against first and second respondents; costs reserved to return date.

Orders

  • First respondent must not remove, dispose of, or deal with assets in Australia up to $1,481,911.20 or equivalent worldwide; exceptions for legal/business expenses.
  • Second respondent must not remove, dispose of, or deal with assets in Australia up to $790,125.60 or equivalent worldwide; exceptions for living/legal/business expenses; property and bank assets specifically referenced.