In the matter of FAL Healthy Beverages Pty Ltd and FAL Retail Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 625

In the matter of FAL Healthy Beverages Pty Ltd and FAL Retail Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 625

A good arguable case exists for the Plaintiffs, supported by evidence of substantial and questionable transactions with associated entities. There is a real risk that, absent the freezing orders, assets may be dissipated to defeat the satisfaction of any judgment. The balance of convenience favours making and continuing the orders with the increased amount, as the evidence does not sufficiently establish the Plaintiffs could not meet an undertaking as to damages, and the orders do not prevent the Defendants from meeting legitimate expenses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List / Application to Extend and Amend Freezing Orders
Outcome
Freezing orders varied and extended; First and Third Defendants ordered to pay Plaintiffs' costs.
Legal Topics
['equitable Remedies' 'freezing Order' 'variation of Freezing Order' 'balance of Convenience']
['equity' 'corporations'] ['equitable Remedies' 'freezing Order' 'variation of Freezing Order' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Equity Corporations List / Application to Extend and Amend Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a good arguable case to support the freezing order and its extension/increase' 'Whether there is a risk of dissipation of assets' "Adequacy of the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages" 'Whether balance of convenience favours the orders sought']

Ratio Decidendi

A good arguable case exists for the Plaintiffs, supported by evidence of substantial and questionable transactions with associated entities. There is a real risk that, absent the freezing orders, assets may be dissipated to defeat the satisfaction of any judgment. The balance of convenience favours making and continuing the orders with the increased amount, as the evidence does not sufficiently establish the Plaintiffs could not meet an undertaking as to damages, and the orders do not prevent the Defendants from meeting legitimate expenses.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders varied and extended; First and Third Defendants ordered to pay Plaintiffs' costs.

Orders

  • ["Each of the three Freezing Orders made by the Court on 14 March 2016 is varied to state: 'This order has effect until further order of the Court.'" 'Amounts in paragraphs 6 and 12 of each Freezing Order increased from $AUD400,000 to $AUD980,000.' "First and Third Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs' costs of and...