Grahame Cooper v Sithe Energies [2000] NSWIRComm 132

Grahame Cooper v Sithe Energies [2000] NSWIRComm 132

The applicant had made out a sufficiently strong and good arguable case, there was a clear risk that assets including the BNP account funds could be transferred or otherwise dealt with so that any s 106 judgment could not be satisfied or would require expensive and delayed enforcement in Delaware, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving assets while allowing ordinary operating payments and consensual dealings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Summons for Relief Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Ex Parte Notice of Motion for Mareva Injunction; Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Ex parte Mareva injunction granted with amendment; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief' 'removal or Disposal of Assets From the Jurisdiction' 'good Arguable Case' 'balance of Convenience']
['industrial Relations' 'unfair Contract' 'civil Procedure' 'equitable Remedies'] ['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Injunctive Relief' 'removal or Disposal of Assets From the Jurisdiction' 'good Arguable Case' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Summons for Relief Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract / Ex Parte Notice of Motion for Mareva Injunction; Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commission in Court Session had power to make interlocutory orders in the nature of injunctive relief.' 'Whether the applicant had shown a sufficiently strong or good arguable case to justify interlocutory Mareva relief.' "Whether there was a risk that the first respondent's assets would be removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise dealt with so that any judgment under s 106 could not be satisfied or would be difficult to enforce." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the ex parte restraint.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had made out a sufficiently strong and good arguable case, there was a clear risk that assets including the BNP account funds could be transferred or otherwise dealt with so that any s 106 judgment could not be satisfied or would require expensive and delayed enforcement in Delaware, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving assets while allowing ordinary operating payments and consensual dealings.

Court Disposition

Ex parte Mareva injunction granted with amendment; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Until further order, the first respondent was restrained from disposing of, dealing with, or removing assets from the jurisdiction, including moneys or funds standing to its credit in the Banque Nationale de Paris account in Sydney.' "The orders, the notice of motion and the applicant's affidavit sworn 24 July...