Natural Raw C Pty Ltd v Bradshaw [2017] NSWSC 310

Natural Raw C Pty Ltd v Bradshaw [2017] NSWSC 310

The detailed evidence of disputed purchase orders, invoices, delivery records, customer denials and the Company's sales to a plaintiff customer established at least a good arguable case that Mr Bradshaw misappropriated the plaintiff's stock and sold some of it through the Company. Mr Bradshaw's general denials and asserted belief in consent did not persuasively answer that evidence. Because there was good reason to think that, absent restraint, Mr Bradshaw would not preserve his assets or cause the Company to do so, and Ms Tran was a shareholder of the Company, the freezing order should not be dissolved and should continue, subject to variations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Freezing Order Application in the Equity Commercial List / Ex Tempore Judgment on Continuation of Freezing Order and Defendants' Application to Dissolve It
Outcome
Freezing order continued, with variations to be addressed after submissions.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'good Arguable Case' 'misappropriation of Stock' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'breach of Employment Contract' 'accessorial Liability' 'fraud']
['equity' 'commercial Law' 'employment Law'] ['freezing Orders' 'good Arguable Case' 'misappropriation of Stock' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'breach of Employment Contract' 'accessorial Liability' 'fraud']

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

Freezing Order Application in the Equity Commercial List / Ex Tempore Judgment on Continuation of Freezing Order and Defendants' Application to Dissolve It

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case against the defendants on an accrued cause of action.' "Whether there was a good arguable case that Mr Bradshaw misappropriated the plaintiff's stock and sold some of it through the Company to the plaintiff's customers." 'Whether the freezing order made on 17 March 2017 should be dissolved or continued, with any necessary variations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The detailed evidence of disputed purchase orders, invoices, delivery records, customer denials and the Company's sales to a plaintiff customer established at least a good arguable case that Mr Bradshaw misappropriated the plaintiff's stock and sold some of it through the Company. Mr Bradshaw's general denials and asserted belief in consent did not persuasively answer that evidence. Because there was good reason to think that, absent restraint, Mr Bradshaw would not preserve his assets or cause the Company to do so, and Ms Tran was a shareholder of the Company, the freezing order should not be dissolved and should continue, subject to variations.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued, with variations to be addressed after submissions.

Orders

  • ['The Court was not persuaded to dissolve the freezing order.' 'The freezing order was to continue, although it had to be varied in some respects.' 'The Court would hear submissions as to the precise terms upon which the order should continue.']