Rentokil Initial Pty Ltd v Kelly [2021] FCA 1119

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rentokil Initial Pty Ltd v Kelly [2021] FCA 1119 File number(s): NSD 923 of 2021

Judgment of: CHEESEMAN J

Date of judgment: 7 September 2021

Date of publication of reasons: 14 September 2021

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – urgent application for freezing orders and ancillary orders – where first respondent was formerly employed by applicant company – where first respondent is sole director and shareholder of the second and third respondents – where applicant alleges the respondents defrauded it of approximately $3.2 million through the payments made on falsified supplier invoices – whether there is a good arguable case warranting the making of freezing orders – whether there is a risk of dissipation of assets – whether the balance of convenience favours making the orders sought by the applicant – Held: relief granted in part – freezing orders – some, not all, ancillary orders sought made.

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Div 7.4, rr 7.32, 7.33 and 7.35

Cases cited: Basi v Namitha Nakul Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 743 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1992) 9 ACSR 404 Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; (1999) 198 CLR 380 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Chemical Trustee Ltd (No 4) [2012] FCA 1064; (2012) 90 ATR 711 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad [2010] FCA 1014; (2010) 273 ALR 194 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi [2021] FCA 22; (2021) 95 ALJR 634 National Australia Bank Ltd v Bond Brewing Holdings Limited [1990] HCA 10; (1990) 169 CLR 271 Ninemia Maritime Corporation v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH UND CO KG [1983] 1 WLR 1412 Patterson v BTR Engineering (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 Re Donnelly; Hancock v Porteous [2001] FCA 345 RRG Nominees Pty Ltd v Visible Temporary Fencing Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1352