State of New South Wales v Shinji Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 8

State of New South Wales v Shinji Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 8

The plaintiff established a good arguable case against the second defendant because the evidence was capable of showing that he resided at the Depot, let accommodation, knew of the dangers of the electrical supply, and that the negligent supply of electrical power caused the fire and damage to the adjoining property. The plaintiff also established a danger that a prospective judgment would not be satisfied because the second defendant had caused assets of the first defendant to be transferred to entities of which he was a beneficiary despite advice to preserve funds for possible claims, his whereabouts were unknown, and attempts to contact him had failed. A freezing order was therefore...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Freezing Order / Interim Application Pending Resolution of Common Law Division Proceedings
Outcome
Freezing orders made against the second defendant until 9 February 2022, upon the plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'interim Preservation' 'good Arguable Case' 'negligence' 'nuisance' 'dissipation of Assets' 'substituted Service']
['civil Procedure' 'tort' 'corporations'] ['freezing Orders' 'interim Preservation' 'good Arguable Case' 'negligence' 'nuisance' 'dissipation of Assets' 'substituted Service']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Freezing Order / Interim Application Pending Resolution of Common Law Division Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case on an accrued or prospective cause of action against the second defendant.' "Whether there was a danger that a prospective judgment would be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the second defendant's assets might be disposed of, dealt with or diminished in value." "Whether a freezing order should be made over the second defendant's assets."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established a good arguable case against the second defendant because the evidence was capable of showing that he resided at the Depot, let accommodation, knew of the dangers of the electrical supply, and that the negligent supply of electrical power caused the fire and damage to the adjoining property. The plaintiff also established a danger that a prospective judgment would not be satisfied because the second defendant had caused assets of the first defendant to be transferred to entities of which he was a beneficiary despite advice to preserve funds for possible claims, his whereabouts were unknown, and attempts to contact him had failed. A freezing order was therefore...

Court Disposition

Freezing orders made against the second defendant until 9 February 2022, upon the plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages.

Orders

  • ['Upon the plaintiff giving to the Court the usual undertaking as to damages with respect to the second defendant and until 9 February 2022, the Court makes orders in terms of the document which is Annexure 1 hereto.' 'The Court orders that these orders be entered forthwith.' 'The Court lists the matter before the...