Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Noicos v Dawson [2019] FCA 2197 File number: SAD 271 of 2019
Judge: WHITE J
Date of judgment: 18 December 2019
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for freezing orders against Respondents pursuant to r 7.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – Respondents alleged to have contravened s 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – Third Respondent opposed application on a number of bases including that he had not engaged in dishonest behaviour – whether there was a reasonably arguable case – whether there was a risk of dissipation of assets – consideration of balance of convenience – application allowed against First, Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents.
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12BAA, 12BAB, 12DA, 12GF Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 7.32, 7.33
Cases cited: Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; (1999) 198 CLR 380 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad [2010] FCA 1014; (2010) 273 ALR 194 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Chemical Trustee Ltd (No 4) [2012] FCA 1064 Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 Pearce v Waterhouse [1986] VR 603
Date of hearing: 18 December 2019
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