Gill v Phillip [2024] NSWSC 898

Gill v Phillip [2024] NSWSC 898

The Plaintiff established a good arguable cause of action because the conduct sued upon was the same conduct for which the Defendant was convicted, and loss or damage could reasonably be inferred from the nature of that conduct. The Plaintiff also demonstrated a sufficient danger that any judgment would be unsatisfied, given the risk that the Coonabarabran property was put on the market after conviction, its subsequent transfer, and the Defendant's failure to provide an assurance not to dissipate assets. With undertakings as to damages offered, a freezing order should be made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing Order Under Pt 25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) in Proceedings for Damages for Personal Injury / Notice of Motion Filed on 11 July 2024; Ex Tempore Decision by Duty Judge With No Appearance by the Defendant
Outcome
Freezing order made in accordance with the Freezing Order annexed and marked "A" to the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 11 July 2024, subject to amendments.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Application' 'danger of Judgment Being Unsatisfied' 'dissipation of Assets' 'good Arguable Case']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury'] ['freezing Orders' 'ex Parte Application' 'danger of Judgment Being Unsatisfied' 'dissipation of Assets' 'good Arguable Case']

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 Freezing Order Under Pt 25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) in Proceedings for Damages for Personal Injury / Notice of Motion Filed on 11 July 2024; Ex Tempore Decision by Duty Judge With No Appearance by the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff had demonstrated a good arguable case on a justiciable cause of action.' "Whether there was a danger that any judgment obtained by the Plaintiff would be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the Defendant's assets might be disposed of or dealt with in a way that diminishes their value." 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to make a freezing order under UCPR 25.11.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff established a good arguable cause of action because the conduct sued upon was the same conduct for which the Defendant was convicted, and loss or damage could reasonably be inferred from the nature of that conduct. The Plaintiff also demonstrated a sufficient danger that any judgment would be unsatisfied, given the risk that the Coonabarabran property was put on the market after conviction, its subsequent transfer, and the Defendant's failure to provide an assurance not to dissipate assets. With undertakings as to damages offered, a freezing order should be made.

Court Disposition

Freezing order made in accordance with the Freezing Order annexed and marked "A" to the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 11 July 2024, subject to amendments.

Orders

  • ['Orders in accordance with the Freezing Order annexed and marked "A" to the Plaintiff\'s Notice of Motion filed on 11 July 2024.' 'On the second page of the Order the date 19 July 2024 is to be inserted, together with Faulkner J as the judge who made the order.' 'On the third page of the Order in paragraph 6, the...