Mercator Property Consultants Pty Ltd v Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1414

Mercator Property Consultants Pty Ltd v Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1414

The injunction was granted because the applicant had shown full and frank disclosure, particulars of its claim, assets of the first-named second respondent within the jurisdiction, a good arguable case, an undertaking as to damages, and a real risk that, if relief were not granted, the first-named second respondent would remove or dissipate the relevant assets so as to prevent satisfaction of any judgment or order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Mareva Injunction Application / Ex Parte Notice of Motion
Outcome
Mareva injunction granted against the first-named second respondent.
Legal Topics
['injunctions' 'mareva Injunctions' 'removal or Dissipation of Assets From the Jurisdiction']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['injunctions' 'mareva Injunctions' 'removal or Dissipation of Assets From the Jurisdiction']

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

Mareva Injunction Application / Ex Parte Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was appropriate to grant a Mareva injunction against the first-named second respondent.' 'Whether there was a good arguable case and a real risk that assets within the jurisdiction would be removed or dissipated so as to prevent satisfaction of any judgment or order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was granted because the applicant had shown full and frank disclosure, particulars of its claim, assets of the first-named second respondent within the jurisdiction, a good arguable case, an undertaking as to damages, and a real risk that, if relief were not granted, the first-named second respondent would remove or dissipate the relevant assets so as to prevent satisfaction of any judgment or order.

Court Disposition

Mareva injunction granted against the first-named second respondent.

Orders

  • ["On the applicant's motion dated 15 October 1998 and upon the applicant having given and filed the usual undertaking as to damages, the first named second respondent be restrained up to and including the conclusion of the hearing of this application or until further order, by itself its servants or agents from...