YAJ1 v Opera Australia [2021] NSWSC 771

YAJ1 v Opera Australia [2021] NSWSC 771

Because the second defendant gave an undertaking accepted by the plaintiff, a freezing order was not presently necessary. However, the second defendant was plainly able to explain what happened to the approximately $500,000 proceeds from the Lewisham property sale, his affidavit omitted that matter, and disclosure was necessary to protect the Court's processes and to determine whether a freezing order ought be made. The appropriate costs order was that the costs of the motion be the plaintiff's costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Damages Arising From Alleged Sexual and Physical Assaults, With Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking a Freezing Order and Ancillary Disclosure Order / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion
Outcome
Freezing order not made presently; second defendant's undertaking noted; ancillary asset disclosure order made; costs of the motion ordered to be the plaintiff's costs in the cause; matter adjourned.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'ancillary Asset Disclosure Orders' 'usual Undertaking as to Damages' 'costs in the Cause' 'suppression and Non Publication']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'torts'] ['freezing Orders' 'ancillary Asset Disclosure Orders' 'usual Undertaking as to Damages' 'costs in the Cause' 'suppression and Non Publication']

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

Civil Proceedings for Damages Arising From Alleged Sexual and Physical Assaults, With Interlocutory Notice of Motion Seeking a Freezing Order and Ancillary Disclosure Order / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an interim freezing order should presently be made against the second defendant.' 'Whether the second defendant should be ordered to disclose all of his assets and what occurred with the proceeds of sale of the Lewisham property.' "What costs order should be made on the plaintiff's notice of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the second defendant gave an undertaking accepted by the plaintiff, a freezing order was not presently necessary. However, the second defendant was plainly able to explain what happened to the approximately $500,000 proceeds from the Lewisham property sale, his affidavit omitted that matter, and disclosure was necessary to protect the Court's processes and to determine whether a freezing order ought be made. The appropriate costs order was that the costs of the motion be the plaintiff's costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Freezing order not made presently; second defendant's undertaking noted; ancillary asset disclosure order made; costs of the motion ordered to be the plaintiff's costs in the cause; matter adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Note the undertaking made by the second defendant in terms of exhibit 1.' 'Note that the plaintiff, by her counsel Mr Loukas, has given the usual undertaking as to damages.' 'Order the second defendant, within 14 days, to file and serve on the applicant an affidavit setting out all of his assets worldwide,...