Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd v Jevena Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 317

Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd v Jevena Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 317

Although legal costs should ordinarily be exempted from a Mareva order, Jevena's inability to fund its defence arose because it and its directors prioritised reimbursement to themselves over the costs of defence; there was no demonstrated change in circumstances justifying reconsideration; thus, Jevena is not entitled to the release of the preserved funds for this purpose.

Parties
Plaintiff: Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd; Defendant: Jevena Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Variation of Interlocutory (mareva) Order / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Funds
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Interlocutory Relief, Asset Preservation, Legal Costs, Balance of Convenience
Equity Injunctions Mareva Injunction Interlocutory Relief Asset Preservation Legal Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Jevena Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Variation of Interlocutory (mareva) Order / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Funds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Jevena Pty Ltd should be permitted access to funds held in court under an asset preservation order to pay for legal costs of defence
  2. 2 Whether circumstances have sufficiently changed to warrant reconsideration of the previous refusal to release funds
  3. 3 Whether the directors' reimbursement from company funds disentitles Jevena Pty Ltd to the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

Although legal costs should ordinarily be exempted from a Mareva order, Jevena's inability to fund its defence arose because it and its directors prioritised reimbursement to themselves over the costs of defence; there was no demonstrated change in circumstances justifying reconsideration; thus, Jevena is not entitled to the release of the preserved funds for this purpose.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Order that the Notice of Motion filed on 14 November 2005 and amended on 10 February 2006 be dismissed with costs.