Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
RRG Nominees Pty Ltd v Visible Temporary Fencing Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 1588 File number: SAD 275 of 2016
Judge: WHITE J
Date of judgment: 15 December 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for freezing orders – whether it is appropriate for freezing orders to continue – whether there is a real risk that a judgment debt would go unsatisfied – freezing orders discharged.
Cases cited: RRG Nominees Pty Ltd v Visible Temporary Fencing Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1352
Date of hearing: 21 November and 15 December 2017
Registry: South Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 17
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J White
Solicitor for the Applicants: Andreyev Lawyers
Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: Mr C Moran
Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: Griffins Lawyers
Counsel for the remaining Respondents: The remaining Respondents did not appear
ORDERS SAD 275 of 2016
BETWEEN: RRG NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 066 061 903) First Applicant
SCHNIK NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 155 094 456) Second Applicant
FRANK SCHIRRIPA NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 008 032 835) Third Applicant
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