Strange v Turnbull; McKenzie v Turnbull [2021] NSWSC 27

Strange v Turnbull; McKenzie v Turnbull [2021] NSWSC 27

Given defendants' failure to provide timely information regarding property sales and contracts, and justified concerns of asset dissipation, freezing orders sought by plaintiffs are reasonable and should be continued. Defendant's application for a stay lacks justification and is refused; orders are made in substantially the form sought by plaintiffs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Robert John Strange; First Defendant: Robeena June Turnbull; First Defendant: Grant Wesley Turnbull; First Respondent: Sylvester Joseph; Second Respondent: Robeena June Turnbull; First Plaintiff: Alison Gai McKenzie; Second Plaintiff: Alexandra Turner (by her tutor Alison Gai McKenzie); Third Plaintiff: Jack Turner (by her tutor Alison Gai McKenzie); First Defendant: Robeena Jane Turnbull; Second Respondent: Robeena Jane Turnbull
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Hearing – Freezing Orders and Costs
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion dismissed with costs; freezing orders granted in terms sought by plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Interim Preservation, Freezing Orders, Costs, Judgment Enforcement
Civil Procedure Interim Preservation Freezing Orders Costs Judgment Enforcement

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Strange

Plaintiff

Robeena June Turnbull

First Defendant

Grant Wesley Turnbull

First Defendant

Sylvester Joseph

First Respondent

Robeena June Turnbull

Second Respondent

Alison Gai McKenzie

First Plaintiff

Alexandra Turner (by her tutor Alison Gai McKenzie)

Second Plaintiff

Jack Turner (by her tutor Alison Gai McKenzie)

Third Plaintiff

Robeena Jane Turnbull

First Defendant

Robeena Jane Turnbull

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Hearing – Freezing Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing orders should be continued or made final to preserve sale proceeds of property pending satisfaction of judgment debts
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's application for a stay of enforcement and alternative orders should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Given defendants' failure to provide timely information regarding property sales and contracts, and justified concerns of asset dissipation, freezing orders sought by plaintiffs are reasonable and should be continued. Defendant's application for a stay lacks justification and is refused; orders are made in substantially the form sought by plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion dismissed with costs; freezing orders granted in terms sought by plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Notice of motion of defendant filed on 21 January 2021 dismissed with costs in both proceedings.
  • Judgment Debtor not to dissipate sale proceeds from 'Erralee' or other properties.