Advertising on Hold Pty Ltd v G Sothcott

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Advertising on Hold Pty Ltd & Ors v G Sothcott & Anor [2011] QSC 280

PARTIES:

ADVERTISING ON HOLD PTY LTD ACN 100 688 962
(first applicant)
VOICEWORKS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 108 451 430
(second applicant)
FONEBOX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 002 071 427
(third applicant)

v

LEASE-WRIGHT PTY LTD ACN 010 230 074 TRADING AS KAZRO DESIGN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S219 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 September 2011.

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

The amount of $361,532.52 paid into court on 14 September is to be maintained in the court, 1.   

$195,656.98 into court by 4pm 10 October 2011. Mr Roger Cartwright pay 2.   

The funds paid into court3.   

shall remain in the court until 14 days after delivery of judgment in the trial of this proceeding or such earlier order of this court;(a)        

subject to a further order of this court, the moneys (together with any accretions thereon) be paid out to Mr Roger Cartwright on the 15th day after delivery of the judgment in the trial of this action.(b)        

Mr Roger Cartwright pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the application heard on 13 and 15 September 2011 fixed in an amount of $13,750 by 5 pm on 23 September 2011.4.   

There be liberty to apply on one (1) day’s notice.5.   

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS –INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – FREEZING ORDERS –Where the plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendants for breach of contract and damages  - where the first defendant is bankrupt– where prior to the trial commencing an injunction was made that until further determination the second defendant’s director be restrained from disposing of his share of the proceeds of sale of three properties – – where the trial of the proceedings is part heard – where one of the properties was disposed of and there is evidence that the second defendant has not acted in accordance with the injunction granted – whether monies the subject of the injunction should be reconstituted – whether if the monies the subject of the injunction are not reconstituted the second defendant should provide affidavit material in explanation 

COUNSEL:

R Perry SC for the applicants
T Sullivan SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Carter Newell Lawyers for the applicants
Rapp Law for the respondent

ANN LYONS J:

Background

1. The first defendant, who is currently an undischarged bankrupt, was employed by the first plaintiff from 19 September 2006 until 13 June 2008 to secure sales for the three plaintiff companies. Those businesses involved the sale of ‘message on hold’ devices and associated services. He was subject to a non disclosure agreement that he would not divulge confidential information.

1. The plaintiffs allege that almost immediately after ceasing to work for the companies the first defendant marketed an MP3 message on hold device from July 2008 which was identical with…