AT Air Group Pty Ltd v Dieter Siewert (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1777

AT Air Group Pty Ltd v Dieter Siewert (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1777

The application was dismissed because, although the material showed current bank balances of no significance, it did not disclose how Aquatic or Mr Seller had dealt with their funds during the period of non-compliance, and the Court was not satisfied that all efforts to comply with the undertaking had been made. The considerable burden for relief from the undertaking was not discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Corporations List Procedural Application / Oral Application to Be Relieved From an Undertaking to the Court
Outcome
Oral application to be relieved from undertakings dismissed with costs, with liberty to renew on better evidence before 15 December 2014.
Legal Topics
['undertakings to the Court' 'relief From Undertaking' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'impecuniosity' 'stay of Proceedings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['undertakings to the Court' 'relief From Undertaking' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'impecuniosity' 'stay of Proceedings' 'costs']

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

Equity Division Corporations List Procedural Application / Oral Application to Be Relieved From an Undertaking to the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third plaintiff should be relieved from the undertaking contained in paragraph 4 of the orders made on 25 June 2012.' 'Whether evidence of current impecuniosity, without disclosure of how funds were applied during the period of default, discharged the burden required for relief from a solemn undertaking to the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because, although the material showed current bank balances of no significance, it did not disclose how Aquatic or Mr Seller had dealt with their funds during the period of non-compliance, and the Court was not satisfied that all efforts to comply with the undertaking had been made. The considerable burden for relief from the undertaking was not discharged.

Court Disposition

Oral application to be relieved from undertakings dismissed with costs, with liberty to renew on better evidence before 15 December 2014.

Orders

  • ['The oral application of the third plaintiff to be relieved from its undertaking be dismissed.' 'The plaintiff pay the defendants costs of the application assessed in the sum of $5,500.' 'The plaintiff have liberty to renew the application by arrangement with my associate on reasonable notice to the defendant...