Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki (Freezing Orders) [2021] FCA 1367 File number: NSD 253 of 2021
Judgment of: THAWLEY J
Date of judgment: 4 November 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to discharge, replace or vary freezing orders made in March 2021 – whether freezing orders should be discharged on the basis that there was no danger of dissipation of assets – whether freezing orders should be replaced by an undertaking in a different form – whether freezing orders should be varied – dealings or notifications on the Register under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 7.32, 7.33, 7.35, 26.01(1) Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) ss 3(1), 31B, 32, 74A
Cases cited: Bayley & Associates Pty Ltd v DBR Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 746 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki (Application to Amend) [2021] FCA 1362 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki (Summary Judgment) [2021] FCA 1361 Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant [2002] NSWSC 750
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Taxation
Number of paragraphs: 91
Date of hearing: 28 October 2021
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Afshar
Solicitor for the Applicant: HWL Ebsworth
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D McGovern SC with Mr D Allen
Solicitor for the Respondent: William Roberts Lawyers
ORDERS NSD 253 of 2021
BETWEEN: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Applicant
AND: SEPIDEH MIRAKI Respondent
order made by: THAWLEY J DATE OF ORDER: 4 November 2021
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