Print Management Australia Pty Ltd v Pasupati [2008] NSWSC 342

Print Management Australia Pty Ltd v Pasupati [2008] NSWSC 342

The ex parte freezing orders were set aside because the plaintiff failed to disclose that it had lodged a caveat over the Strathfield property described as the first defendant's major asset. Although the plaintiff established a good arguable case that payments caused by the first defendant were irregular, the evidence did not establish any real risk that the first defendant would make assets unavailable to frustrate the court's processes or enforcement of any judgment, particularly given his detailed explanations, personal circumstances, and the existing caveat over the major asset. The freezing orders were therefore discharged and not reimposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Freezing Orders in the Equity Division, Corporations List / Applications as to the Future of Ex Parte Freezing Orders Affecting the First Defendant, Including Dissolution and Reimposition
Outcome
Freezing orders discharged and not reimposed; costs directions made.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Disclosure' "directors' Duties" 'dissipation of Assets' 'balance of Convenience']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'corporations'] ['freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Disclosure' "directors' Duties" 'dissipation of Assets' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Application Concerning Freezing Orders in the Equity Division, Corporations List / Applications as to the Future of Ex Parte Freezing Orders Affecting the First Defendant, Including Dissolution and Reimposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff discharged its duty of disclosure on the ex parte application for freezing orders' 'Whether the ex parte freezing orders should be set aside and reimposed' "Whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case that the first defendant breached directors' duties by causing irregular payments to be made" 'Whether there was a real risk that the first defendant would deal with assets so as to frustrate enforcement of any judgment']

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte freezing orders were set aside because the plaintiff failed to disclose that it had lodged a caveat over the Strathfield property described as the first defendant's major asset. Although the plaintiff established a good arguable case that payments caused by the first defendant were irregular, the evidence did not establish any real risk that the first defendant would make assets unavailable to frustrate the court's processes or enforcement of any judgment, particularly given his detailed explanations, personal circumstances, and the existing caveat over the major asset. The freezing orders were therefore discharged and not reimposed.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders discharged and not reimposed; costs directions made.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant is to file by delivery to the judge's associate by 18 April 2008 written submissions in support of the costs orders referred to in the written submissions already filed or, alternatively, any motion intended to be brought in respect of costs." 'The proceedings are listed for further directions...