MTH v Croft [2020] NSWSC 986

MTH v Croft [2020] NSWSC 986

A Mareva injunction in the usual terms is warranted against Mr Croft, and a limited order is appropriate as against Mrs Croft restricted to properties shown to have been transferred for no valuable consideration, due to the plaintiff’s prima facie case, danger of asset dissipation, third party possession of assets, and the plaintiff’s intention to seek to set aside the asset transfers under statutory provisions.

Parties
Applicant: MTH; First Respondent: Geoffrey Croft; Second Respondent: Sandra June Croft
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Mareva Injunction (freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application (ex Parte)
Outcome
Interim Mareva (freezing) order made, subject to finalisation of orders; matter stood over for further mention/directions.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Mareva Injunction (freezing Order), Personal Injury, Asset Preservation, Transfers to Defeat Creditors
Civil Procedure Tort Law Interlocutory Injunctions Mareva Injunction (freezing Order) Personal Injury Asset Preservation Transfers to Defeat Creditors

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MTH

Applicant

Geoffrey Croft

First Respondent

Sandra June Croft

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Mareva Injunction (freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application (ex Parte)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Mareva (freezing) order should be granted against the respondent and a third party (respondent’s wife) to preserve assets potentially available to satisfy judgment in a personal injury proceeding
  2. 2 Whether asset transfers to the third party justify an injunction to prevent dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

A Mareva injunction in the usual terms is warranted against Mr Croft, and a limited order is appropriate as against Mrs Croft restricted to properties shown to have been transferred for no valuable consideration, due to the plaintiff’s prima facie case, danger of asset dissipation, third party possession of assets, and the plaintiff’s intention to seek to set aside the asset transfers under statutory provisions.

Court Disposition

Interim Mareva (freezing) order made, subject to finalisation of orders; matter stood over for further mention/directions.

Orders

  • Direct the plaintiff to bring in a form of order giving effect to the reasons, to be finalised in chambers.
  • Stand the matter over for mention or directions before the judge on Friday 31 July 2020 to consider continuation of the injunction.