Hiero Pty Ltd v Somers, William Anthony & Ors [1983] FCA 161

Hiero Pty Ltd v Somers, William Anthony & Ors [1983] FCA 161

The Federal Court has jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions under s.23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act and s.87 of the Trade Practices Act in appropriate cases; however, on the evidence, there is no real risk that the third to eighth respondents will dissipate or remove assets to defeat a potential judgment, so the notice of motion is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Hiero Pty. Limited; First Respondent: William Anthony Somers; Second Respondent: EX. Business Acquisitions Pty. Limited; Third Respondent: Kelaw Pty. Limited; Fourth Respondent: Alfred Knight Pty. Limited; Fifth Respondent: Beale Pianos Pty. Limited; Sixth Respondent: Music Houses of Australia Pty. Limited; Seventh Respondent: Nicholsons Pty. Limited; Eighth Respondent: Wes Pacing Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 1983
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Mareva Injunctions
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunctions, Federal Court Jurisdiction, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty
Commercial Law Injunctions Mareva Injunctions Federal Court Jurisdiction Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Negligent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Warranty

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hiero Pty. Limited

Applicant

William Anthony Somers

First Respondent

EX. Business Acquisitions Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Kelaw Pty. Limited

Third Respondent

Alfred Knight Pty. Limited

Fourth Respondent

Beale Pianos Pty. Limited

Fifth Respondent

Music Houses of Australia Pty. Limited

Sixth Respondent

Nicholsons Pty. Limited

Seventh Respondent

Wes Pacing Pty. Limited

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctions / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Mareva Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions
  2. 2 Whether orders restraining appointment of receiver and disposal of assets pending hearing should be made
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of respondents dissipating or removing assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court has jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions under s.23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act and s.87 of the Trade Practices Act in appropriate cases; however, on the evidence, there is no real risk that the third to eighth respondents will dissipate or remove assets to defeat a potential judgment, so the notice of motion is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 25 January 1983 be dismissed.
  • The costs of the third to eighth respondents of this Notice of Motion be part of their costs in the main application.