Westpac Banking Corporation v Lameri [2000] NSWSC 393

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lameri [2000] NSWSC 393

Because the only material indicated that the money in the Indonesian account came from the alleged fraud, there was no explanation or defence from the relevant defendants, and there had been no compliance with asset disclosure requirements under the Mareva order, the fund was at risk and should be further protected by appointing a receiver while continuing existing protective orders for a limited period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings for Interim Protective Relief Including Mareva Orders and Appointment of a Receiver / Further Application for Interim Protective Relief Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Interim protective orders made; existing order continued to 22 May 2000; receiver appointed over the Indonesian bank account; proceedings stood over and hearing dates fixed.
Legal Topics
['mareva Orders' 'ancillary Orders' 'receivers' 'foreign Bank Account' 'tracing Alleged Fraud Proceeds']
['equity' 'mortgages' 'civil Procedure'] ['mareva Orders' 'ancillary Orders' 'receivers' 'foreign Bank Account' 'tracing Alleged Fraud Proceeds']

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

Equity Proceedings for Interim Protective Relief Including Mareva Orders and Appointment of a Receiver / Further Application for Interim Protective Relief Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an interim receiver should be appointed over money in a foreign bank account said to have been transferred from the third defendant's account to the first defendant's account." 'Whether appointment of a receiver ancillary to existing Mareva orders would be futile or would improperly give the plaintiff de facto security.' 'Whether existing Mareva orders should be continued and asset disclosure deferred.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the only material indicated that the money in the Indonesian account came from the alleged fraud, there was no explanation or defence from the relevant defendants, and there had been no compliance with asset disclosure requirements under the Mareva order, the fund was at risk and should be further protected by appointing a receiver while continuing existing protective orders for a limited period.

Court Disposition

Interim protective orders made; existing order continued to 22 May 2000; receiver appointed over the Indonesian bank account; proceedings stood over and hearing dates fixed.

Orders

  • ['Existing order 1 is continued up to and including 22 May 2000, and the existing undertaking as to damages is noted as continuing until then.' "Without limiting any party's ability to claim privilege against self-incrimination, the first defendant must by 4pm on 17 May 2000 deliver to the Registry in a sealed...