NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Napper v Hadchiti [2006] NSWSC 855 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S) : 03/08/06
JUDGMENT DATE : 3 August 2006
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : White J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 08/03/2006
DECISION : Summons dismissed.
CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Mareva orders – Parties involved in proceedings before Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal – Plaintiff sought asset preservation orders to protect his position if successful in proceedings before Tribunal – Whether plaintiff able to demonstrate prima facie case in Tribunal – Whether plaintiff able to demonstrate danger that defendants intend to deal with assets in way which would defeat execution of any judgment by plaintiff – Mareva relief refused – Summons dismissed - No question of principle.
LEGISLATION CITED : Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Aspermont Ltd v Lechmere Financial Corporation (2002) 27 WAR 1 CASES CITED : P M Biscoe, Mareva and Anton Piller Orders: Freezing and Search Orders, 2005 Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Limited (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
PARTIES : Peter Robert Napper v George Hadchiit & Anor
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4097/06
COUNSEL : Plaintiff: Mr L Judd Defendant: N/A
SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: MBA Lawyers Defendant: N/A
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Compensation Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
WHITE J
Thursday, 3 August 2006
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