Cvitanovic v Hill [2005] FCA 1651

The Court refused the motion because it was not satisfied that there was a sufficiently strong prima facie case and, in any event, was not satisfied that there was a sufficient fear of disposition of assets to warrant Mareva relief, notwithstanding Mrs Hill's failure to offer an undertaking.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 28 October 2005
Procedural Posture: Motion for Mareva Relief / Notice of Motion
Outcome: Motion for Mareva relief refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics: ['mareva Relief' 'freezing Orders' 'prima Facie Case' 'disposition of Assets' 'costs']

['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['mareva Relief' 'freezing Orders' 'prima Facie Case' 'disposition of Assets' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Motion for Mareva Relief / Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the applicant had a sufficiently strong prima facie case for Mareva relief against Mrs Hill.' 'Whether there was a sufficient fear of disposition of assets to warrant Mareva relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Motion for Mareva relief refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.

Orders

['The notice of motion filed in proceedings NSD 1737 of 2005 is treated as a motion for relief in the matter of Cvitanovic v Judith Hill.' 'The motion referred to in order 1 is refused.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs in the motion referred to in order 1."]