A IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G6 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : WAREA PTY. LTD. First Applicant STRIPE LIMITED Second Applicant AND: WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. trading as Deltrite Financial Services First Respondent AND: WILLIAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG Second Respondent AND: LISA N. VIRBA Third Respondent AND: ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS Fourth Respondent DATE OF HEARING: 24 JANUARY 1986 DATE JUDGMENT DELIVERED: 24 JANUARY 1986 COUNSEL : for the applicants appearing Mr. A.J.H. Morris instructed ex parte by Cooper, Grace & Ward. '\ <> A ' D.T. O'BRIEN CEIVED ASSOCIATE TO PINCUS J. RE 40 FEB 1986 24 JANUARY 1986 FEDERAL Rau PRINCIPAL CATCHWORDS TRADE PRACTICES - misleading conduct - Mareva injunction. Trade Practices Act 1974, 5.52 WAREA PTY. LTD. & ANOR. v. WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. trading as Deltrite Financial Services & ORS. QLD. G6 OF 1986 PINCUS J. BRISBANE 24 January 1986 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G6 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : WAREA PIY. LTD. First Applicant STRIPE LIMITED Second Applicant AND: WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. trading as Deltrite Financial Services First Respondent AND: WILLIAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG Second Respondent AND: LISA N. VIRBA Third Respondent AND: ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS Fourth Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 24 JANUARY 1986 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: l. The first respondent be restrained until 5 p.m. on the 3rd day of February 1986 or until further order from: (a) Selling, disposing or charging or otherwise encumbering or dealing with any real property held by it in the State of Queensland or elsewhere in Australia; (b) Withdrawing any moneys from any bank account being moneys to which it ais beneficially entitled; {c) Disposing of or otherwise dealing with any other asset to which it is beneficially entitled. 2. Order that the second respondent be restrained until 5 p.m. on the 3rd day of February 1986 or until further order from: (a) Selling, disposing or charging or otherwise encumbering or dealing with any real property held by him in the State of Queensland or elsewhere in Australia; (b) Withdrawing any moneys from any bank account being moneys to which he is beneficially entitled other than an amount (not exceeding $200.00 per day) in the ordinary course of business or for personal or domestic purposes; (c) Disposing of or otherwise dealing with any other asset to which he is beneficially entitled other than assets (having a total value not exceeding $200.00 per day) in the ordinary course of business or for personal or domestic purposes. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G6 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISTON ) BETWEEN : WAREA PTY. LTD. First Applicant STRIPE LIMITED Second Applicant AND: WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. trading as Deltrite Financial Services First Respondent AND: WILLTAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG Second Respondent AND: LISA N. VIRBA Third Respondent AND: ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS Fourth Respondent PINCUS J. 24 January 1986 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for a Mareva injunction in which the applicants assert that they have been misled or defrauded by the respondents, or some of them. The evidence shows that the case for the applicants is that they invested a substantial sum of money, in excess of $200,000, in what was supposed to bea money-making scheme involving Eurobonds. The money which has been put in has not been repaid, although promises to pay it have been made. More alarmingly, there was said to be a bank called the Caribbean Bank of Credit Limited involved on the respondent's side and the applicants now suspect no such bank exists. They base that suspicion on information obtained from the Fraud Squad, which is investigating the matter, and also on the circumstance that the bank is said to have no physical office but merely telex and fax addresses, which one would think to be an unusual position for a genuine bank to be in. The evidence before me 1s such as to raise a prima facie case, if not of fraud, at least of conduct falling within s.52 of the Trade Practices Act. As Mr. Morris on behalf of the applicants says, it is not necessary for the applicants to allege fraud in order to succeed in raising a prima facie case sufficient for the purposes of s.52, but the fact that there 1s some evidence of fraud seems to me to be of particular importance in considering whether there 1s the necessary degree of risk of removal of assets. The question whether there is sufficient evidence of such a risk has rather troubled me, but I am satisfied on the whole that a risk of such magnitude has been shown as to justify the grant of a Mareva injunction. The only reported case which I have noted in which such an injunction has been granted in this court 1s Hiero Pty. Ltd. v. Somers (1983) 47 A.L.R. 605, but I have no doubt there have been other such cases and there is no reason to doubt the court's jurisdiction to grant such injunctions. The precise order which should be made has been discussed with counsel and it will be noted that it contains a limited provision for expenditure in the ordinary course of business or for personal or domestic purpeses. A monetary limit has been placed upon such expenditure largely because, in the circumstances of this case, it might be argued to be well within the ordinary course of business of the relevant respondents to shift large sums of money from Australia to other countries. Further, there is such an element of uncertainty in the meaning of the expression "ordinary course of business" in the facts of this case as to make it desirable to give a degree of precision to the limitation of the order by imposing a monetary limit on such expenditure; the limit 1s $200 per day. In summary, the applicants have shown a prima facie case under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act, with more than a suggestion of fraud, and I am satisfied that their case is of sufficient strength to grant an injunction for a short period in the first instance. jlidgment herein of His Honour Mr. Justice Pincus Lie ck a! Se ¢ /2/38 & Associate Dated