Koromiko Pty Ltd v Asia Pacific International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 843

Koromiko Pty Ltd v Asia Pacific International Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 843

Although there is a seriously arguable question as to breach of ss 1064 and 1065 of the Corporations Law, the applicant has not established at this time that the appointment of a receiver or granting of a Mareva injunction is necessary; lesser remedies such as discovery and safeguarding funds suffice at this interlocutory stage. The court will adjourn the application, require discovery, and order safeguards on respondent's funds, discharging prior Mareva orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Order; Application for Receiver or Mareva Injunctions Pending Trial
Outcome
Application for appointment of receiver and Mareva injunction refused at this stage; orders for discovery and interim safeguards made; prior Mareva orders discharged.
Legal Topics
['appointment of Receiver' 'mareva Injunction' 'discovery' 'breach of Corporations Law' 'prescribed Interests' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']
['corporations Law' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['appointment of Receiver' 'mareva Injunction' 'discovery' 'breach of Corporations Law' 'prescribed Interests' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']

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

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Order; Application for Receiver or Mareva Injunctions Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to appoint a receiver under s 1323 of the Corporations Law' 'Whether Mareva injunction should be granted' 'Whether there is breach of ss 1064 and 1065 of the Corporations Law' 'Whether applicant has made out a prima facie case of danger of dissipation of assets' 'Whether a joint venture exists between applicant and respondents']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there is a seriously arguable question as to breach of ss 1064 and 1065 of the Corporations Law, the applicant has not established at this time that the appointment of a receiver or granting of a Mareva injunction is necessary; lesser remedies such as discovery and safeguarding funds suffice at this interlocutory stage. The court will adjourn the application, require discovery, and order safeguards on respondent's funds, discharging prior Mareva orders.

Court Disposition

Application for appointment of receiver and Mareva injunction refused at this stage; orders for discovery and interim safeguards made; prior Mareva orders discharged.

Orders

  • ["Application adjourned to be brought on on five working days' notice by the moving party to the other side." 'Matter listed for directions at 9.30 am on 7 August 1998.' 'Orders in relation to the grant of Mareva injunctions discharged.' 'Costs of today reserved.' 'Each of the respondents, other than the fifth...