Isaac Daniel Wineberg v Khader George Ghamrawi (also known as Jacoub Ghamraoui) [2012] NSWSC 238

Isaac Daniel Wineberg v Khader George Ghamrawi (also known as Jacoub Ghamraoui) [2012] NSWSC 238

Although the Court accepted for present purposes that there was a serious question to be tried, the evidence did not show that the defendant was seeking to frustrate the normal processes of the court. The defendant's use of different names did not evidence dishonesty or an intention to dispose of assets to defeat the plaintiffs' claim, and the sale of the house was not sufficient because an agency agreement had been entered into before the dispute surfaced and there was no other evidence that the defendant was leaving the jurisdiction or realising assets to deprive the plaintiffs of any judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for a Freezing Order / Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application for a freezing order dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['freezing Order' 'security for Judgment' 'frustration of Court Processes' 'building Contract Dispute' 'misleading Statements']
['procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Order' 'security for Judgment' 'frustration of Court Processes' 'building Contract Dispute' 'misleading Statements']

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 a Freezing Order / Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious question to be tried concerning the plaintiffs' proposed claim against the defendant." 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a freezing order restraining the defendant from dealing with the proceeds of sale of his house.' "Whether the defendant's use of different names and entry into contracts to sell his house evidenced an intention to frustrate the ordinary processes of the court or enforcement of any judgment."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court accepted for present purposes that there was a serious question to be tried, the evidence did not show that the defendant was seeking to frustrate the normal processes of the court. The defendant's use of different names did not evidence dishonesty or an intention to dispose of assets to defeat the plaintiffs' claim, and the sale of the house was not sufficient because an agency agreement had been entered into before the dispute surfaced and there was no other evidence that the defendant was leaving the jurisdiction or realising assets to deprive the plaintiffs of any judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for a freezing order dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for a freezing order is dismissed with costs.']