Nominet UK v Diverse Internet Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 669

Nominet UK v Diverse Internet Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 669

The affidavit evidence established the requisite danger that the Third and Fourth Respondents' assets might be dissipated or disposed of, including evidence of property sales or transfers, company administration, lack of assurances and difficulties in contact. The evidence also supported ancillary asset disclosure orders, non-Mareva disclosure orders against the First and Fifth Respondents, subpoenas concerning the relevant transfers, and leave under s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to proceed against the First and Fifth Respondents to the extent necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Amended Notice of Motion for Mareva Injunction and Ancillary Orders / Interlocutory Motion Heard Instanter
Outcome
Amended notice of motion granted and orders made.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'asset Preservation' 'disclosure of Assets' 'service by Email and Fax' 'leave to Proceed Under S 471 B of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'copyright Infringement' 'trade Practices and Fair Trading']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'intellectual Property' 'consumer Law'] ['mareva Injunction' 'asset Preservation' 'disclosure of Assets' 'service by Email and Fax' 'leave to Proceed Under S 471 B of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth)' 'copyright Infringement' 'trade Practices and Fair Trading']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Amended Notice of Motion for Mareva Injunction and Ancillary Orders / Interlocutory Motion Heard Instanter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mareva relief should be granted against the Third and Fourth Respondents because of a danger that assets may be removed, dissipated or disposed of so that the Applicant may be denied the fruits of judgment.' 'Whether ancillary disclosure orders should be made against the Third and Fourth Respondents.' 'Whether non-Mareva affidavit disclosure orders should be made against the First and Fifth Respondents.' 'Whether leave should be granted to issue subpoenas to settlement agents and to proceed against the First and Fifth Respondents to the extent necessary under s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether substituted or alternative service by email, telephone notification and fax should be permitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit evidence established the requisite danger that the Third and Fourth Respondents' assets might be dissipated or disposed of, including evidence of property sales or transfers, company administration, lack of assurances and difficulties in contact. The evidence also supported ancillary asset disclosure orders, non-Mareva disclosure orders against the First and Fifth Respondents, subpoenas concerning the relevant transfers, and leave under s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to proceed against the First and Fifth Respondents to the extent necessary.

Court Disposition

Amended notice of motion granted and orders made.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the Applicant to file an Amended Notice of Motion in Court and the Motion made returnable instanter.' 'Requirements of Federal Court Rules Order 20 rule 2(1) dispensed with.' 'Until further order, the Third Respondent restrained from removing from Australia or dealing with assets within Australia,...