Curtis v NID Pty Ltd

The case of Curtis v NID Pty Ltd involved an application by the applicant, Curtis, for an injunction to prevent the respondents from disposing of their assets. Curtis sought the injunction in anticipation of potentially winning his claim against the respondents in ongoing litigation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether Curtis had provided sufficient evidence to justify the grant of a freezing order, which would prevent the respondents from disposing of their assets.

In determining whether a freezing order should be granted, the court considered the test set out in Finn v Carelli, which requires the applicant to demonstrate a real danger that the respondent will dissipate or dispose of their assets, preventing the applicant from satisfying a judgment. The court emphasised that this must be shown by evidence, not mere assertion. The court found that Curtis's evidence was insufficient as it consisted of bare assertions that the respondents were dissipating their assets, without providing any objective facts to support this claim. The court also noted that the sale of assets for full value does not constitute dissipation.

Furthermore, the court examined various discretionary considerations that influenced its decision. These included the applicant's lack of urgency in making the application, the potential harm to the respondents' business, and the respondents' strong defence in the substantive proceedings. The court concluded that the applicant had not met the burden of proof required for a freezing order and dismissed the application with costs.