Brown v Kells [2009] NSWSC 648

Brown v Kells [2009] NSWSC 648

The present evidence does not satisfy the court that there is a danger of a prospective judgment being wholly or partly unsatisfied; there is no sufficient indication that the defendant intends to remove the cattle or deal with assets irregularly to frustrate enforcement.

Parties
Plaintiff: John Brown; Defendant: Brett Kells
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Freezing Order and Summary Judgment; Notice of Motion Adjourned
Outcome
Freezing order declined; notice of motion adjourned.
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Adjournment, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Freezing Order Adjournment Summary Judgment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Brown

Plaintiff

Brett Kells

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Freezing Order and Summary Judgment; Notice of Motion Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a freezing order should be made in favour of the plaintiff to prevent the defendant from disposing of assets (cattle) pending judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The present evidence does not satisfy the court that there is a danger of a prospective judgment being wholly or partly unsatisfied; there is no sufficient indication that the defendant intends to remove the cattle or deal with assets irregularly to frustrate enforcement.

Court Disposition

Freezing order declined; notice of motion adjourned.

Orders

  • Freezing order declined.
  • Notice of motion adjourned to Thursday 9 July at 9am before the Registrar for mention.