Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd v Slotwinski (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1814

Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd v Slotwinski (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1814

The plaintiff is entitled to a freezing order as it has a good arguable case and there is a danger that judgment will go unsatisfied because the defendants may remove assets from the jurisdiction.

Parties
Plaintiff: Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Julia Slotwinski; Second Defendant: Mariusz Slotwinski; Third Defendant: Juno Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing order granted
Legal Topics
Interim Preservation, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Interim Preservation Freezing Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nutek Constructions Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Julia Slotwinski

First Defendant

Mariusz Slotwinski

Second Defendant

Juno Australia Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a freezing order to prevent dissipation of assets by defendants pending the outcome of Tribunal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is entitled to a freezing order as it has a good arguable case and there is a danger that judgment will go unsatisfied because the defendants may remove assets from the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Freezing order granted

Orders

  • Freezing order granted substantially in the form sought by the plaintiff
  • Liberty to apply on two days' notice