Tjiong v Tjiong [2007] NSWSC 216

Tjiong v Tjiong [2007] NSWSC 216

The application for Mareva relief was refused because the plaintiffs did not establish even a prima facie case or serious question to be tried that the defendant breached a trustee or fiduciary duty, and in any event the case was weak and the evidence did not establish, by evidence and not assertion, a real danger of disposal or dissipation of assets sufficient to justify a freezing order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Mareva Relief / Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for Mareva relief refused; plaintiffs' application for a freezing order dismissed.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunctions' 'freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'breach of Trustee or Fiduciary Duty' 'dissipation of Assets' 'standard of Proof']
['equity' 'trusts' 'civil Procedure'] ['mareva Injunctions' 'freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'breach of Trustee or Fiduciary Duty' 'dissipation of Assets' 'standard of Proof']

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 for Mareva Relief / Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie cause of action or serious question to be tried against the defendant for breach of duty as trustee or fiduciary.' 'Whether the plaintiffs established by evidence, and not assertion, a real danger that the defendant would dispose of or deal with assets so that any judgment could not be satisfied.' 'Whether Mareva relief should be granted over a house property in which the defendant had a one half interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for Mareva relief was refused because the plaintiffs did not establish even a prima facie case or serious question to be tried that the defendant breached a trustee or fiduciary duty, and in any event the case was weak and the evidence did not establish, by evidence and not assertion, a real danger of disposal or dissipation of assets sufficient to justify a freezing order.

Court Disposition

Application for Mareva relief refused; plaintiffs' application for a freezing order dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to file in court notice of motion returnable instanter.' 'Dispense with service of the notice of motion.' "Note the undertaking of Mr Andrew O'Brien to pay the filing fee." "Dismiss the plaintiffs' application for a freezing order." "Order the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of that...