J & J Bone Pty Ltd & Ors v Quick Sign Shops (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors Biscen Pty Ltd & Ors v Temsign Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 522

J & J Bone Pty Ltd & Ors v Quick Sign Shops (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors Biscen Pty Ltd & Ors v Temsign Pty Ltd & Ors [1996] FCA 522

The Court found that cumulative evidence demonstrated a real risk that assets could be dissipated before satisfaction of any judgment, particularly given inconsistent explanations, inadequate disclosure, breaches of previous orders, and funds being used for purposes inconsistent with the preservation intent of the Mareva injunction. Accordingly, the Court made further restraint orders, required notice for dealings with relevant properties, and placed the onus on respondents to justify future disbursements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Application/motion for Interlocutory Orders (mareva Injunction) / Interlocutory, Post Injunction, Application for Further Restraint and Modification of Orders
Outcome
Orders granted restraining specified respondents from disbursing funds; variation of previous orders; costs awarded to applicants.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'asset Preservation' 'court Process' 'disclosure of Financial Information']
['practice and Procedure'] ['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'asset Preservation' 'court Process' 'disclosure of Financial Information']

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/motion for Interlocutory Orders (mareva Injunction) / Interlocutory, Post Injunction, Application for Further Restraint and Modification of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether further restraint of respondents from disbursing funds should be imposed' 'Whether respondents failed to comply with previous Mareva orders' 'Whether additional disclosure of financial information should be ordered' "Appropriate modification to Mareva injunction to balance risk of asset dissipation and respondents' requirements"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that cumulative evidence demonstrated a real risk that assets could be dissipated before satisfaction of any judgment, particularly given inconsistent explanations, inadequate disclosure, breaches of previous orders, and funds being used for purposes inconsistent with the preservation intent of the Mareva injunction. Accordingly, the Court made further restraint orders, required notice for dealings with relevant properties, and placed the onus on respondents to justify future disbursements.

Court Disposition

Orders granted restraining specified respondents from disbursing funds; variation of previous orders; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • ["The first, second and third respondents are restrained from disbursing the funds held in bank account No. 260237709 at the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited's branch at 940 Hay Street, Perth until further order." 'Orders made on 13 October 1995 are varied as specified regarding dealings with certain...