Reliance Financial Services v Lemery Holdings [2005] NSWSC 651

Reliance Financial Services v Lemery Holdings [2005] NSWSC 651

Interlocutory asset preservation relief was warranted because there was a serious question to be tried that Lemery was bound, or that Mr and Mrs Sobbi were obliged to procure Lemery, to grant a charge over Lemery's assets, and there was also a serious question concerning consideration and enforceability of the charge terms. The balance of convenience favoured relief because there was a risk of dissipation of Lemery's assets and Reliance's alleged alternative security over Mr and Mrs Sobbi's home was itself being challenged in other proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for an Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted, later revoked and replaced with amended interlocutory orders preserving assets including jewellery; directions made for further conduct of proceedings.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'asset Preservation Order' 'agreement to Grant a Charge' 'fixed and Floating Charge' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'informal Corporate Act' 'ostensible Authority' 'consideration']
['corporations' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'asset Preservation Order' 'agreement to Grant a Charge' 'fixed and Floating Charge' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'informal Corporate Act' 'ostensible Authority' 'consideration']

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 an Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that short minutes of order made on 2 October 2003 amounted to an agreement by Lemery to grant a fixed and floating charge over its assets.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that Mr and Mrs Sobbi agreed that Lemery would grant a charge and should be ordered to do what was necessary to procure it.' 'Whether any agreement to grant a charge was enforceable despite alleged uncertainty about the precise terms of the charge.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried about sufficient consideration passing to Lemery.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory asset preservation orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interlocutory asset preservation relief was warranted because there was a serious question to be tried that Lemery was bound, or that Mr and Mrs Sobbi were obliged to procure Lemery, to grant a charge over Lemery's assets, and there was also a serious question concerning consideration and enforceability of the charge terms. The balance of convenience favoured relief because there was a risk of dissipation of Lemery's assets and Reliance's alleged alternative security over Mr and Mrs Sobbi's home was itself being challenged in other proceedings.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted, later revoked and replaced with amended interlocutory orders preserving assets including jewellery; directions made for further conduct of proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Upon the plaintiffs by their counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, order 5 in the notice of motion filed 29 June 2005 was made.' 'Order 1 made by Registrar Berecry on 4 November 2004 in proceedings 4924 of 2004 was set aside.' 'The interlocutory order made on 30 June 2005 was revoked.' 'Orders were...