PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to discharge freezing orders – whether balance of convenience favours the continuation of the orders – where orders served on banks – where respondents’ bank accounts frozen – where, if the orders were permitted to remain, companies would be wound up and the second respondent would be personally bankrupted – freezing orders discharged upon the respondents undertaking to the applicant and the Court that they will not dispose of or deal with any assets except for the purposes of paying their ordinary living expenses, legal expenses and business expenses, or otherwise with the consent of the plaintiff in writing
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – observations on the frequency of applications to vary freezing orders because of difficulties in operating bank accounts – suggested that the onus be on the party seeking a freezing order to justify any proposal to give notice of the order to a bank or financial institution which is not itself a party to the order
Related cases on freezing orders
-
First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (Freezing Orders) [2026] FCA 48
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for freezing orders pursuant to r 7.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where ex parte freezing orders and asset disclosure orders have been made against the respondents – whether applicant has established good arguable case, risk of undermining the Court’s processes – whether balance of convenience favours…
-
First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – urgent ex parte application for freezing orders under r 7.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – consideration of applicable principles – consideration of suspicious, irregular and unusual explanations for the non-repayment of an acknowledged debt of USD $7.5 million – orders made
-
3D Access Pty Ltd v Buzasi [2025] FCA 1105
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for urgent injunctive relief and freezing orders – where first respondent a former employee, director and shareholder of first applicant – where employment contract contained restraint clause prohibiting post-employment solicitation of or interference with clients – where first respondent’s notice of departure as a shareholder given under exit agreement…
