C J Redman Constructions Pty Ltd v Tarnap Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 172

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : C J Redman Constructions Pty Ltd v Tarnap Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 172

HEARING DATE(S) : 9 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 9 March 2006

JURISDICTION : Equity

JUDGMENT OF : Campbell J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 03/09/2006

DECISION : Order not granted

CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE – Mareva orders – need for evidence of threat to assets

PARTIES : C J Redman Constructions Pty Limited - Plaintiff Tarnap Pty Limited - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4793/05

COUNSEL : N A Confos - Plaintiff S A Wells - Defendant

SOLICITORS : Trisley Kilmurray - Plaintiff Christopher C Freeman & Co - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION DUTY JUDGE LIST

CAMPBELL J

THURSDAY 9 MARCH 2006

4793/05 C J REDMAN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LIMITED v TARNAP PTY LIMITED JUDGMENT – Ex Tempore 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff for Mareva orders against the defendant. The plaintiff is a builder, who carried out work for the defendant. There was a dispute about the amount which was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. That dispute was submitted to the Local Court, and has now resulted in a judgment in the plaintiff's favour. 2 The defendant has filed an appeal to this Court against that judgment. 3 There is some evidence that the defendant is the trustee of a trust. 4 The evidence discloses that the defendant is the registered proprietor of six titles of land. Evidence which the plaintiff read today tends to show that, while the defendant's real estate is mortgaged, there is a surplus of something over a million dollars. I appreciate that the calculation of that surplus is on the basis of something which the defendant calls the "developed value" of the land, but that is the only evidence that is before me today. 5 In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any threat to assets, of a kind which would justify the granting of Mareva relief on an ex parte basis. The matter was, in effect, argued as an ex parte case, even though the defendant was here, and the defendant's lawyers had had some notice of the intention of the plaintiff to apply for Mareva relief today. 6 It is fundamental to the Court's jurisdiction to grant Mareva orders that they exist when there is evidence of a threat to assets, such that if there were to be delay in the Court's processes, there might be a spiriting away of assets so as to render the Court process ineffective. I am not satisfied there is that kind of risk demonstrated on the evidence today. 7 Mr Confos advanced an interesting argument, that this Court has jurisdiction to grant Mareva orders in support of a judgment obtained, not only in this Court, but in any inferior Court in New South Wales. The purpose of Mareva orders, he says, is to protect the administration of justice, and the Supreme Court can protect the whole of the administration of justice in this State, not only the administration of justice in cases that are brought in this Court or have some incidental application made or possibly to be made in this Court. In circumstances where I am not satisfied of the requisite threat to assets, it is not necessary to consider this interesting argument. I decline to grant any Mareva relief today. **********