Eddy Lau Constructions Pty. Ltd. v. Transdevelopment Enterprises Pty. Ltd. [2001] NSWSC 82

Eddy Lau Constructions Pty. Ltd. v. Transdevelopment Enterprises Pty. Ltd. [2001] NSWSC 82

The plaintiff had an arguable but not particularly secure or strong case, and the valuation evidence raised some suspicion but did not justify a finding of a degree of dissipation risk warranting major interference with the defendant's assets. However, because the defendant indicated it would not deal with assets otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, the material justified a limited restriction to that extent and a restriction on transferring assets outside Australia, supported by the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Mareva Injunction Application / Application
Outcome
Limited Mareva injunction granted.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'risk of Dissipation of Assets' 'balance of Convenience' 'home Building Act 1989']
['procedure' 'injunctions'] ['mareva Injunction' 'risk of Dissipation of Assets' 'balance of Convenience' 'home Building Act 1989']

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

Mareva Injunction Application / Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff had shown sufficient justification for a Mareva injunction interfering with the defendant's rights to deal with its property." "Whether the strength of the plaintiff's case, risk of dissipation of assets, and balance of convenience supported the injunction sought." 'Whether any restriction should be limited to dealings outside the ordinary course of business and transfers of assets outside Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had an arguable but not particularly secure or strong case, and the valuation evidence raised some suspicion but did not justify a finding of a degree of dissipation risk warranting major interference with the defendant's assets. However, because the defendant indicated it would not deal with assets otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, the material justified a limited restriction to that extent and a restriction on transferring assets outside Australia, supported by the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Limited Mareva injunction granted.

Orders

  • ['Upon the plaintiff by its Counsel giving to the Court the usual undertaking as to damages, until further order the defendant not deal with or use its assets, including the property the subject of these proceedings and the proceeds of sale of units in that property, otherwise than in the ordinary course of its...