Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki [2023] FCA 483 File number(s): NSD 253 of 2021
Judgment of: THAWLEY J
Date of judgment: 1 May 2023
Date of publication of reasons 17 May 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for payment out of court of moneys paid into court pursuant to freezing orders - application granted - application for orders in the nature of freezing orders - application refused
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.43
Cases cited: El-Cheikh v Miraki [2021] NSWCA 271
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Taxation
Number of paragraphs: 21
Date of hearing: 1 May 2023
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R E Raffell
Solicitor for the Applicant: HWL Ebsworth
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr D McGovern SC with Mr D Allen
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Kekatos Lawyers
Counsel for the Intervener: Mr M Condon SC
Solicitor for the Intervener: Cornwalls
ORDERS NSD 253 of 2021
BETWEEN: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Applicant AND: SEPIDEH MIRAKI First Respondent
WILLIAM ROBERTS PTY LTD (ACN 115 089 864) TRADING AS WILLIAM ROBERTS LAWYERS Second Respondent OMAR EL-CHEIKH Intervener
order made by: thawley j DATE OF ORDER: 1 MAY 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Pursuant to rule 2.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the District Registrar pay the amount of $727,023.00 to the trust account of the intervener's solicitor. 2. Within seven days of the date of this order, the intervener's instructing solicitor notify the District Registrar of the trust account details into which the funds should be paid. 3. Paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application dated 20 February 2022 be dismissed. 4. The first respondent pay the intervener's costs of paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application. 5. The intervener pay the first respondent's costs of paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application. 6. There be no order as to costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the interlocutory application. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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