PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – continuation of freezing orders – balance of convenience – where maintaining injunction will have the effect that a proposed demolition and development of foreclosed property will be delayed by a period of up to four months – where evidence does not establish that the proposal is economically feasible – where applicants have sufficient real property assets in Australia to support their undertaking as to damages
Related cases
-
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hartley [2025] FCA 322
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ex parte application for freezing orders and ancillary orders – whether there is a good arguable case for final relief on prospective cause of action for tax related liabilities – whether there is a degree of danger or risk that any judgment obtained will not be met due to dissipation of…
-
Gattani v Digital Edge Technologies Pty Ltd (in administration) [2025] FCA 199 (17 March 2025)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by the plaintiff for freezing and ancillary orders concerning the assets of the second defendant and third parties – plaintiff contends that the second defendant: (1) wrongly failed to transfer to the plaintiff the issued shares in the first defendant; (2) diverted funds belonging to the first defendant to the…
-
Elzain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 873
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – suppression and non-publication orders – where the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation applied on an ex parte basis for freezing orders – where the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation relied on a large volume of material in support of the application – where the applicants applied for…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca1417
For more information, see the original judgement.
