Cvitanovic v Hill

[2005] FCA 1651

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 APPLICANT
AND:	JUDITH HILL RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	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 APPLICANT
AND:	JUDITH HILL RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	28 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. So for those reasons, I will not grant the relief which is sought.  The motion will be dismissed.

4. 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