Allomak Ltd v Allan

Allomak Ltd sought the discharge of freezing orders made against Allan. The orders had been made inter partes, and Allomak argued that there was not an arguably good case for the orders to continue. Additionally, Allomak contended that there was no real risk of dissipation of assets and that the freezing of non-party assets should be discharged due to material non-disclosure on the ex parte application. The defendants, in turn, argued that they had access to sufficient funds for the payment of reasonable legal expenses and that their undertakings as to damages were sufficient.

The court considered whether Allomak had established an arguably good case for discharge and whether there was a risk of dissipation of assets. The court also examined whether the freezing of non-party assets should be discharged due to material non-disclosure and whether the defendants had access to sufficient funds for payment of reasonable legal expenses. The court noted the relevance of Clout (Trustee) v Anscor Pty Ltd in determining whether the freezing orders should be discharged. The court concluded that Allomak had not established that there was no real risk of dissipation of assets, but that the freezing of non-party assets should be discharged due to material non-disclosure on the ex parte application. The court found that the defendants had access to sufficient funds for the payment of reasonable legal expenses and that their undertakings as to damages were sufficient.

The court made orders discharging the freezing of non-party assets but not the freezing of Allan's assets. The court also ordered that Allomak pay the defendants' costs of the application.