Weal v Bathurst City Council and Anor [2000] NSWLEC 51
The Court has the power to make Mareva orders in its civil jurisdiction, including post-judgment, but the second respondent did not establish with sufficient evidence that the applicant was seeking to defeat enforcement of the costs order by disposing of assets; thus, the threshold for granting a Mareva order was not met.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion (post Judgment, Enforcement Proceedings) / Post Judgment Application for Mareva Order
- Outcome
- Second Respondent's Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['mareva Injunction' 'enforcement of Costs Orders' 'jurisdiction of Superior Courts']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (post Judgment, Enforcement Proceedings) / Post Judgment Application for Mareva Order
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Does the Land and Environment Court have power to make a Mareva order?' 'Can a Mareva order be made post-judgment in aid of enforcing a costs order?' 'Has the second respondent established entitlement to a Mareva order?']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court has the power to make Mareva orders in its civil jurisdiction, including post-judgment, but the second respondent did not establish with sufficient evidence that the applicant was seeking to defeat enforcement of the costs order by disposing of assets; thus, the threshold for granting a Mareva order was not met.
Court Disposition
Second Respondent's Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Notice of Motion by the second respondent dismissed.' "Second respondent to pay the applicant's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment