Orix Australia Corporation Ltd v Moody Kiddell & Partners Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1211

Orix Australia Corporation Ltd v Moody Kiddell & Partners Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1211

The Plaintiff did not establish grounds for asset preservation orders against the First or Second Defendant. There was no sufficient prima facie case of dishonesty against the First Defendant because the evidence did not show that its directors actively participated in the alleged fraud. Although there was a sufficient prima facie case of dishonesty against the Second Defendant, there was no direct evidence that she would dissipate assets, no evidence that she appropriated profits, and no evidence that she had anything to gain other than procuring a brokerage commission for her employer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Motion for Asset Preservation Orders or Mareva Type Injunctions / Motion Filed on 12 November 2004 Against the First, Second and Third Defendants
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['injunctions' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'mareva Type Injunctions' 'alleged Fraudulent Transaction' 'dissipation of Assets']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['injunctions' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'mareva Type Injunctions' 'alleged Fraudulent Transaction' 'dissipation of Assets']

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

Motion for Asset Preservation Orders or Mareva Type Injunctions / Motion Filed on 12 November 2004 Against the First, Second and Third Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether asset preservation orders should be made against the First Defendant.' 'Whether asset preservation orders should be made against the Second Defendant.' 'Whether there was a sufficient prima facie case of dishonesty and a real likelihood of dissipation of assets.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff did not establish grounds for asset preservation orders against the First or Second Defendant. There was no sufficient prima facie case of dishonesty against the First Defendant because the evidence did not show that its directors actively participated in the alleged fraud. Although there was a sufficient prima facie case of dishonesty against the Second Defendant, there was no direct evidence that she would dissipate assets, no evidence that she appropriated profits, and no evidence that she had anything to gain other than procuring a brokerage commission for her employer.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The motion as against the First, Second and Third Defendants filed on 12 November 2004 is dismissed.' 'The Plaintiff will pay the costs of such of the Respondents to that motion as have actually incurred costs in relation to the motion.' 'The proceedings stand into the Expedition List on Friday 3 December 2004.']