FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cvitanovic v Hill [2005] FCA 1651
DANIEL IVAN CVITANOVIC v JUDITH HILL
NSD 2134 of 2005
JACOBSON J
28 OCTOBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2134 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
DANIEL IVAN CVITANOVIC
APPLICANTAND:
JUDITH HILL
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The notice of motion filed in proceedings NSD 1737 of 2005 is treated as a motion for relief in the matter of Cvitanovic v Judith Hill.
2.The motion referred to in order 1 is refused.
3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs in the motion referred to in order 1.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2134 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
DANIEL IVAN CVITANOVIC
APPLICANTAND:
JUDITH HILL
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
28 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant, the trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Thomas Hill, has filed a notice of motion filed for mareva relief against Mrs Hill.
I not satisfied firstly that there is a sufficiently strong prima facie case and in any event, I am not satisfied within the tests stated on many occasions by the authorities that there is a sufficient fear of disposition of the assets to warrant the exercise of this jurisdiction. I would therefore not grant the relief that is sought and I say that notwithstanding the failure of Mrs Hill to offer an undertaking.
So for those reasons, I will not grant the relief which is sought. The motion will be dismissed.
I will order the applicant to pay the costs of the motion for Mareva relief against Mrs Hill.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate:
Dated: 18 November 2005
Solicitor for the Applicant: Stacks // William Oates Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Martin Date of Hearing: 28 October 2005 Date of Judgment: 28 October 2005
- AGLC
- Cvitanovic v Hill [2005] FCA 1651
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1651
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the applicant's motion and found that it did not meet the criteria for relief. The court held that the motion did not have sufficient merit to warrant the granting of relief. The court reasoned that the motion did not provide a strong enough argument for the applicant to be granted relief. Consequently, the court decided to refuse the applicant's motion. Furthermore, the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs incurred in the motion.
In summary, the court treated the notice of motion filed in proceedings NSD 1737 of 2005 as a motion for relief in the matter of Cvitanovic v Hill. However, the court refused the motion and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs. This decision highlights the importance of meeting the criteria for relief and the consequences of filing a motion that does not meet the required standards.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The notice of motion filed in proceedings NSD 1737 of 2005 is treated as a motion for relief in the matter of Cvitanovic v Judith Hill.
2. The motion referred to in order 1 is refused.
3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs in the motion referred to in order 1.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: JACOBSON J
Full text does not contain this section.