Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 95

The application was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to infer deliberate action by the first respondent to put assets beyond the reach of the Court, the interrogatories were in truth directed to discovering whether a judgment could be met rather than to a proper mareva injunction purpose, and the first respondent could not be compelled to disclose insurance or funding arrangements.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 10 February 2004
Procedural Posture: Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Interrogate the First Respondent / Renewed Application Heard and Dismissed
Outcome: Applicant's motion dismissed.
Legal Topics: ['interrogatories' 'mareva Injunction' 'asset Dissipation' 'insurance and Litigation Funding Disclosure']

['civil Procedure' 'injunctions'] ['interrogatories' 'mareva Injunction' 'asset Dissipation' 'insurance and Litigation Funding Disclosure']

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

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Motion for Leave to Interrogate the First Respondent / Renewed Application Heard and Dismissed

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the applicant should have leave to interrogate the first respondent on the basis that it was allegedly dissipating assets in circumstances said to be preliminary to a mareva injunction.' 'Whether the applicant should have leave to interrogate the first respondent to ascertain whether it was insured.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion dismissed.

Orders

["The applicant's motion for leave to interrogate the first respondent is dismissed."]