Daftar v Al-Khamisy [2014] NSWDC 305

Daftar v Al-Khamisy [2014] NSWDC 305

The application was dismissed because Mr Daftar did not provide a proper evidentiary foundation establishing a real danger that a prospective judgment would be unsatisfied. The sale of the family home and asserted inadequacy of financial information were insufficient, the solicitor's affidavit provided relevant details, there was no demonstrated obligation to provide more information merely because it was requested, the proposed orders were unreasonable and overreaching in their impact on third parties, and the defendant's personal and business ties to Australia militated against the unsupported allegation that he would abscond or dissipate assets.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding; Application for Freezing Orders and Ancillary Orders / Interlocutory Further Amended Notice of Motion After Evidence in the Trial Had Concluded and Before Written Submissions
Outcome
Plaintiff's further amended notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['freezing Order' 'ancillary Order' 'prospective Judgment Debtor' 'third Party Orders' 'evidentiary Onus' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['freezing Order' 'ancillary Order' 'prospective Judgment Debtor' 'third Party Orders' 'evidentiary Onus' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding; Application for Freezing Orders and Ancillary Orders / Interlocutory Further Amended Notice of Motion After Evidence in the Trial Had Concluded and Before Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff established by evidence a real danger that any prospective judgment would be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the defendant or others might abscond, remove assets, or dispose of, deal with or diminish assets.' "Whether the sale of the defendant's home and alleged lack of satisfactory financial information justified freezing orders or ancillary disclosure orders." 'Whether orders requiring payment into court or restraints affecting Hayfa Zamel and Bright Jewellery Pty Ltd were appropriate against or affecting third parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because Mr Daftar did not provide a proper evidentiary foundation establishing a real danger that a prospective judgment would be unsatisfied. The sale of the family home and asserted inadequacy of financial information were insufficient, the solicitor's affidavit provided relevant details, there was no demonstrated obligation to provide more information merely because it was requested, the proposed orders were unreasonable and overreaching in their impact on third parties, and the defendant's personal and business ties to Australia militated against the unsupported allegation that he would abscond or dissipate assets.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's further amended notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the plaintiff's further amended notice of motion." 'Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of and incidental to that notice of motion.']