Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [1987] HCA 23

Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [1987] HCA 23

The Federal Court's orders requiring the appellant to provide security in the sum of $3,000,000 went beyond the Court's power to grant Mareva injunctions under s. 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), as they effectively created an unqualified requirement to pay money as security without restriction to identified assets or preservation pending judgment, thus exceeding permissible interlocutory relief. Such orders were wrongly made as a matter of principle, but they were not nullities, remaining effective until set aside. The appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Full Court of the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunctions' 'jurisdiction of Federal Courts' 'powers of the Federal Court' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'security for Judgment']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['mareva Injunctions' 'jurisdiction of Federal Courts' 'powers of the Federal Court' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'security for 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Full Court of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had power to order the appellant to provide security in the sum of $3,000,000 as an interlocutory relief (in the nature of a Mareva injunction).' 'Whether the orders made by the Federal Court were a nullity (void) or were effective until set aside.' 'Whether such orders improperly conferred secured creditor status on the respondent or went beyond permissible interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court's orders requiring the appellant to provide security in the sum of $3,000,000 went beyond the Court's power to grant Mareva injunctions under s. 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), as they effectively created an unqualified requirement to pay money as security without restriction to identified assets or preservation pending judgment, thus exceeding permissible interlocutory relief. Such orders were wrongly made as a matter of principle, but they were not nullities, remaining effective until set aside. The appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Order that the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court dated 15 October 1986 dismissing the appeal with costs be set aside.' 'In lieu thereof allow the appeal to that Court with costs.' 'Order that the orders numbered 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12 made by Sheppard J. on 23 April 1986 be each amended by removing...