Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bayley & Associates Pty Ltd v DBR Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 746 Citation: Bayley & Associates Pty Ltd v DBR Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 746
Parties: BAYLEY & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD v DBR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 133 308 737) and NIGEL HUCKSTEP
File number: ACD 20 of 2010
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 6 July 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Court should make blanket Freezing Orders against two respondents – relevant principles discussed – whether the mere fact that the only substantial asset of either respondent, a residential house property in Canberra, had been advertised for sale with an asking price which was at or near market value in circumstances where the respondent had moved permanently from Canberra to Western Australia in order to take up employment there constituted sufficient evidence of a threat by that respondent to dissipate his assets or to put his assets beyond the reach of the applicant as to warrant the Court's entertaining the making of Freezing Orders
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011, Pt 7, Div 7.4
Cases cited: Frigo v Culhaci [1998] NSWCA 88 followed Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave GmbH & Co KG [1984] 1 All ER 398 followed Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 followed
Date of hearing: 6 July 2012
Place: Canberra
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 47
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr MJ Heath
Solicitor for the Applicant: Goodman Law
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate