C J Redman Constructions Pty Ltd v Tarnap Pty Ltd

C J Redman Constructions Pty Ltd, a contracting company, brought a proceeding against Tarnap Pty Ltd, a property developer, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of contract. The defendant, anticipating potential claims, sought an interim order freezing the plaintiff's assets under the Mareva doctrine. The court was tasked with determining whether sufficient evidence had been presented to justify such an order.

The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff had presented adequate evidence of a threat to its assets, which would justify a Mareva order. This doctrine allows a court to freeze a defendant's assets to prevent them from being dissipated or removed from the jurisdiction, thus ensuring that any judgment obtained would be satisfied. The court had to balance the need to prevent unjust enrichment with the defendant's right to due process.

The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets. The plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendant had either dissipated existing assets or was likely to do so in the future. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff's financial position was not as precarious as alleged. The evidence presented did not meet the high threshold required to justify a Mareva order. Consequently, the court refused to grant the interim order.