Infigo II Pty Ltd v Linmas Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 755

Infigo II Pty Ltd v Linmas Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 755

The plaintiff established a weak prima facie case for relief under s 37A Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), and the balance of convenience otherwise favored the plaintiff, but due to doubt about the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages and failure to adduce evidence establishing its capacity to meet the undertaking, the application for continuation of freezing orders was dismissed and freezing orders discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Relief / Ruling on Continuation of Freezing Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed; freezing orders discharged
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'voidable Alienation' 'trustee Liabilities' 'contractual Capacity' 'reimbursement and Exoneration']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'land Law' 'trusts' 'contract'] ['freezing Orders' 'voidable Alienation' 'trustee Liabilities' 'contractual Capacity' 'reimbursement and Exoneration']

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

Application for Interim Relief / Ruling on Continuation of Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case for final relief under s 37A Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)' 'Whether there was an intent to defraud creditors in the transfer of property' 'The proper legal capacity of Linmas Holdings Pty Ltd in entering the construction contract' "Availability of trust assets for the plaintiff's claim" 'Balance of convenience and undertaking as to damages']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established a weak prima facie case for relief under s 37A Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), and the balance of convenience otherwise favored the plaintiff, but due to doubt about the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages and failure to adduce evidence establishing its capacity to meet the undertaking, the application for continuation of freezing orders was dismissed and freezing orders discharged.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; freezing orders discharged

Orders

  • ['The application for continuation of freezing orders is dismissed.' 'Freezing orders discharged with immediate effect.' "Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of and incidental to the application on the ordinary basis, not payable until the conclusion of the proceedings under r 42.7(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules...