Darede Nominees Pty Ltd v Caboolture 24 Hour Medical Centre Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 466

Darede Nominees Pty Ltd v Caboolture 24 Hour Medical Centre Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 466

The applicant established a strong prima facie case that the respondents misled it as to the security provided for a $250,000 loan, and there was evidence assets were being or had been dissipated, justifying Mareva injunctions against the first and fifth respondents. The risk of frustration of any judgment warranted interlocutory restraint. Security for costs was refused as the timing of the substantive issue (repayment due by April 1988) reduced the risk of prejudice to respondents, and other applications by respondents were dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Darede Nominees Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent: Caboolture 24 Hour Medical Centre Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Geoffrey Walter Edelsten; Third Respondent: Leanne Margaret Edelsten; Fourth Respondent: Stephen Francis Weller; Fifth Respondent: Ralema Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief (mareva Injunction and Various Interlocutory Orders) / Interlocutory (orders and Ex Tempore Reasons)
Outcome
Mareva injunctions granted in respect of the first and fifth respondents; applications for security for costs and particulars by respondents dismissed; costs orders as specified.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunctions, Security for Costs, Business Securities, Loans and Guarantees, Fraud and Misrepresentation
Commercial Law Equity Insolvency Practice and Procedure Mareva Injunctions Security for Costs Business Securities Loans and Guarantees +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darede Nominees Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Caboolture 24 Hour Medical Centre Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent

Geoffrey Walter Edelsten

Second Respondent

Leanne Margaret Edelsten

Third Respondent

Stephen Francis Weller

Fourth Respondent

Ralema Pty. Ltd.

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief (mareva Injunction and Various Interlocutory Orders) / Interlocutory (orders and Ex Tempore Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Mareva injunction should be granted restraining the respondents from disposing of their assets
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory relief is justified on the evidence of risk to recovery of judgment
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a strong prima facie case that the respondents misled it as to the security provided for a $250,000 loan, and there was evidence assets were being or had been dissipated, justifying Mareva injunctions against the first and fifth respondents. The risk of frustration of any judgment warranted interlocutory restraint. Security for costs was refused as the timing of the substantive issue (repayment due by April 1988) reduced the risk of prejudice to respondents, and other applications by respondents were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Mareva injunctions granted in respect of the first and fifth respondents; applications for security for costs and particulars by respondents dismissed; costs orders as specified.

Orders

  • First and fifth respondents (including their directors, servants, and agents) are restrained until determination of the proceedings or further order from selling, transferring, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with any of their assets other than in the ordinary course of business, except to the extent their assets...
  • Costs of the application for interlocutory injunctions to be costs in the proceedings.