gs 7% 3a IN THE FEDERAL COURT Of AUSTRALIA ) "Ce ef fore QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISTON ) BETWEEN: DAREDE NOMINEES PTY. LID. JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Applicant OLD G81 of 1987 AND: CABOOLTURE 24 HOUR MEDICAL CENTRE PTY. LTD. First Respondent AND: GEOFFREY WALTER EDELSTEN Second Respondent AND: LEANNE MARGARET EDELSTEN Third Respondent AND: STEPHEN FRANCIS WELLER Fourth Respondent AND: RALEMA PTY. LTD. Fifth Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE: 10 JULY 1987 BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for disclosure of information he dismissed. The costs of the application be reserved. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt within Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. os \ ' AAR MH AL . rey a a, a Pent ees ee we ne . TOTTI re ese ene) enue nnn mame ey a me ek eee Ho 2 ' : a ne' oo. = IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G81 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: DAREDE NOMINEES PTY. LTD. Applicant AND: CABOOLTURE 24 HOUR MEDICAL CENTRE PTY. LTD. First Respondent AND: GEOFFREY WALTER EDELSTEN Second Respondent AND: LEANNE MARGARET EDELSTEN Third Respondent AND: STEPHEN FRANCIS WELLER Fourth Respondent AND: RALEMA PTY. LTD. Fifth Respondent PINCUS J. 10 JULY 1987 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter, I made an order on 19 June 1987 under what is described as the Mareva principle. The bases on which I made that order are set out in the reasons I then gave, and included acceptance that the applicant had a good prima facie case that it had been deceived as to the security which would he ee et me ee wee ' 8 my er ree eee - one wea ee an pen available and given. The orders which I then made did not include any order for disclosure of information, although one was sought. Upon senior counsel for the respondents intimating that he was unprepared to argue that aspect of the matter, it was adjourned and has been heard today, Mr. Newton of counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mrs. Wolfe of counsel for the respondents. Mr. Newton has argued, and Mrs. Wolfe concedes, that there is jurisdiction to make such an order as is in question, and they agree and I hold that I have a discretion to do so. The function of the orders which I made on 26 June, if they work, 1s to impose an inhibition on dealings by the first and fifth respondents with their assets. I say "1f they work" because Tam somewhat doubtful, and was then, as to whether they will achieve much in a practical sense. But I thought I should make them without, of course, giving any assurance to the applicant that to do so would necessarily achieve its purpose. The application today is made on the same material with one exception: Mr. Weller, who had previously sworn an affidavit, has made another one in which he says, in effect, that it would be too difficult to supply information about the affairs of the first and fifth respondents. He makes what, in the circumstances, is rather an odd remark, namely that there are necessarily involved in the successful carrying on of the businesses inter-company transactions. 7 arieene) —— ae a sen orm nr ee ved, an! oa TRU UIO cee we Sqr ene ne eae, a" lee Se ee vy, Pre ya eeee = whe ett Tan a vss at Of course, that was bound up in the original application. It was suggested that by some device the intended security had been abstracted from one company in the group and vested in another. So far from giving the Court any assurance, Mr. Weller's affidavit would increase my doubts as to the applicant's prospects of eventually obtaining any security. The immediate purpose of the proceedings, however, is not to do that but to undo the transaction, and that must be kept in mind in considering Mr. Newton's application - that is, money having been lent to the first three respondents, the applicant wants 1t back unless, no doubt, some arrangement 1s made suitable to it in the meantime. The orders which are sought would require the first and fifth respondents to say what they have in the bank, who owes them money, and give an inventory of their assets. Some such information is presently before the Court, but one could not rely on it in view of the way in which these companies have conducted their affairs. And I do not see that there is any practical point in making such an order as is sought. No doubt it keeps up the pressure on the respondents, but I do not believe it would really ach1reve anything, and I will therefore refuse to make the order. The costs of today's application will be reserved. ? certify that this andthe < preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for fudgment herein of His Honour Mr. Justice Pincus ty Associate Dated ic July 1987 epee ae oe t ve