Peter Carlisle v Linette Reynolds; Carlisle Attorneys Pty Ltd v Linette Reynolds [2020] NSWSC 639

Peter Carlisle v Linette Reynolds; Carlisle Attorneys Pty Ltd v Linette Reynolds [2020] NSWSC 639

The judgment debt remained unsatisfied, the garnishee order was an order of the Court, and once the relevant Westpac account was identified there was no reason Westpac should not comply with it. To remove the bank's concern about breaching the freezing order, the appropriate course was to vary the freezing order made on 28 April 2014 so that it was subject to compliance with the garnishee order made on 11 November 2019 in respect of the identified account.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Common Law Proceedings Concerning Freezing Orders and Enforcement of a Judgment Debt by Garnishee Order / Hearing and Determination of Notice of Motion Filed on 29 January 2020
Outcome
Freezing order varied; parties to pay their own costs.
Legal Topics
['solicitor Client Costs Dispute' 'freezing Order' 'garnishee Order' 'judgment Debt' 'variation of Orders']
['civil Law' 'legal Costs' 'civil Procedure' 'enforcement of Judgments'] ['solicitor Client Costs Dispute' 'freezing Order' 'garnishee Order' 'judgment Debt' 'variation of Orders']

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

Notice of Motion in Common Law Proceedings Concerning Freezing Orders and Enforcement of a Judgment Debt by Garnishee Order / Hearing and Determination of Notice of Motion Filed on 29 January 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the freezing order made on 28 April 2014 should be varied to permit Westpac Bank to comply with the garnishee order made on 11 November 2019.' "Whether compliance with the garnishee order would impermissibly breach the existing freezing order over the defendant's Westpac account." 'Whether any order should be made requiring payment of funds in the identified Westpac account to the judgment creditor.']

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment debt remained unsatisfied, the garnishee order was an order of the Court, and once the relevant Westpac account was identified there was no reason Westpac should not comply with it. To remove the bank's concern about breaching the freezing order, the appropriate course was to vary the freezing order made on 28 April 2014 so that it was subject to compliance with the garnishee order made on 11 November 2019 in respect of the identified account.

Court Disposition

Freezing order varied; parties to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • ['The freezing order made on 28 April 2014 is varied so that it is subject to compliance by the Westpac Bank with a garnishee order made on 11 November 2019 in respect of account number [REDACTED] in the name of [REDACTED].' 'The parties are to pay their own costs.']