Wise v Icons Worldwide Marketing Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1800

Wise v Icons Worldwide Marketing Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1800

The evidence did not establish a real risk or danger that Mr Shale and Mrs Shale would dispose of or dissipate the proceeds of the sale of the property, so as to defeat satisfaction of any judgment. The sale was explained, not concealed, and affidavits established intention to purchase a new family home in joint names. The Court, with caution due to the drastic nature of Mareva orders, found the circumstances insufficient to support the order sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Motion for Mareva Order / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['mareva Order' 'asset Preservation Order' 'interlocutory Injunctions']
['practice and Procedure'] ['mareva Order' 'asset Preservation Order' 'interlocutory Injunctions']

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

Motion for Mareva Order / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a real risk or danger of dissipation or disposal of proceeds of sale so that any judgment would be unsatisfied' 'Whether grounds for granting a Mareva order are established']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish a real risk or danger that Mr Shale and Mrs Shale would dispose of or dissipate the proceeds of the sale of the property, so as to defeat satisfaction of any judgment. The sale was explained, not concealed, and affidavits established intention to purchase a new family home in joint names. The Court, with caution due to the drastic nature of Mareva orders, found the circumstances insufficient to support the order sought.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['The motion filed by the applicants on 21 November 2000 be dismissed.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the motion of the respondents and of Victoria Jean Shale and that such costs be paid forthwith pursuant to O 62 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules notwithstanding that the proceeding is not concluded.']