Sterling Industries Ltd v. Nim Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 152

Sterling Industries Ltd v. Nim Services Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 152

Given the extraordinary and systematic efforts by the second respondent to divest and conceal assets likely to frustrate enforcement of any judgment, and in light of the court’s jurisdiction under s.23 Federal Court of Australia Act and the need to protect the applicant, it is appropriate to order the provision of security by the respondent in a form that does not necessarily compel self-incrimination, together with ancillary orders to preserve the status quo and prevent dissipation of assets until the matter is finally determined.

Parties
Applicant: Sterling Industries Limited; First Respondent: NIM Services Pty Limited; Second Respondent: John William Jackson; Fourth Respondent: Mrs. Jackson; Fifth Respondent: Marden and Associates (real estate agent); Sixth Respondent: Sixth Respondent; Seventh Respondent: Seventh Respondent; Eighth Respondent: Edith Pastoral Company Pty Limited; Ninth Respondent: Mrs. E.M. Jackson; Eleventh Respondent: Jackson Holdings Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 1986
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Substituted Notice of Motion and Related Applications Pending Principal Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in substantial part; orders made for security, asset preservation, costs, and timetable for ancillary steps.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunctions, Security for Judgment, Asset Preservation Orders, Privilege Against Self Incrimination
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Commercial Law Mareva Injunctions Security for Judgment Asset Preservation Orders Privilege Against Self Incrimination

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sterling Industries Limited

Applicant

NIM Services Pty Limited

First Respondent

John William Jackson

Second Respondent

Mrs. Jackson

Fourth Respondent

Marden and Associates (real estate agent)

Fifth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Edith Pastoral Company Pty Limited

Eighth Respondent

Mrs. E.M. Jackson

Ninth Respondent

Jackson Holdings Pty Limited

Eleventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Substituted Notice of Motion and Related Applications Pending Principal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a Mareva order requiring provision of security for judgment.
  2. 2 Whether an order requiring the respondent to provide security would amount to pre-trial attachment or require the respondent to self-incriminate.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to order security or appoint receivers on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the extraordinary and systematic efforts by the second respondent to divest and conceal assets likely to frustrate enforcement of any judgment, and in light of the court’s jurisdiction under s.23 Federal Court of Australia Act and the need to protect the applicant, it is appropriate to order the provision of security by the respondent in a form that does not necessarily compel self-incrimination, together with ancillary orders to preserve the status quo and prevent dissipation of assets until the matter is finally determined.

Court Disposition

Application granted in substantial part; orders made for security, asset preservation, costs, and timetable for ancillary steps.

Orders

  • Order that the Second Respondent provide security in the sum of $2,990,000 in a manner agreed or as approved by the Registrar, compliance by 2:30 p.m. on 2 May 1986.
  • Security not to be released except by consent of parties or further order of the Court.