Bunnings Pty Ltd v McMillin

The matter before the court was an application by Bunnings Pty Ltd for a Mareva injunction against McMillin, an individual who was alleged to have breached their contractual obligations with the company. The dispute centred around McMillin's failure to make payments for goods and services provided by Bunnings, which led to the company seeking an injunction to freeze McMillin's assets to secure the debt. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff, Bunnings, had satisfied the criteria required to obtain a Mareva injunction. The court needed to consider whether Bunnings had a prima facie case against McMillin, whether there was a risk of McMillin disposing of assets to defeat the judgment, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction. The court also had to assess whether the plaintiff had taken all reasonable steps to secure the debt outside of court.

The court determined that Bunnings had established a prima facie case against McMillin based on the undisputed evidence of the outstanding debt. The court found that McMillin had the means to dispose of assets to defeat the judgment, given his ownership of several properties and businesses. Furthermore, the court considered that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction, as McMillin's potential dissipation of assets would cause significant prejudice to Bunnings' ability to recover the debt. The court also noted that Bunnings had taken reasonable steps outside of court to secure the debt, such as sending demand letters and initiating legal proceedings. Based on these findings, the court granted the Mareva injunction, freezing McMillin's assets to secure the debt owed to Bunnings. The court ordered that McMillin's assets be frozen until the dispute was resolved or the debt was paid in full.