Sciacca and ors v Langshaw Valuations Pty Limited and ors [2013] NSWSC 1393

Sciacca and ors v Langshaw Valuations Pty Limited and ors [2013] NSWSC 1393

The plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence of any risk that a judgment would go unsatisfied due to asset dissipation or disposition. The orders already provided adequate protection, had not been breached, and no reason existed to impose further administrative burdens. The balance of convenience favoured the current orders and the applications for variation were refused as a matter of discretion.

Parties
Plaintiff: Frank Sciacca and ors; 11th Defendant: Arnap Pty Limited; 12th Defendant: Peter John Evans
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Vary Freezing Orders
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed. Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the 11th and 12th defendants.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Applications to Vary Orders, Interlocutory Relief, Costs
Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Applications to Vary Orders Interlocutory Relief 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Sciacca and ors

Plaintiff

Arnap Pty Limited

11th Defendant

Peter John Evans

12th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Vary Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing orders should be varied to include net proceeds of sale of lots as assets subject to the order
  2. 2 Whether further restrictions should be imposed on the defendants regarding proceeds of sale
  3. 3 Whether adequate protection for the plaintiffs exists in current orders

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence of any risk that a judgment would go unsatisfied due to asset dissipation or disposition. The orders already provided adequate protection, had not been breached, and no reason existed to impose further administrative burdens. The balance of convenience favoured the current orders and the applications for variation were refused as a matter of discretion.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed. Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the 11th and 12th defendants.

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed by the plaintiffs on 10 September 2013 is dismissed.
  • The Court notes the undertakings given by the eleventh and twelfth defendants which have been initialled by me and dated today.