CXG v Stephen James Limond

The case of CXG v Stephen James Limond involved a dispute regarding the transfer of an interest in property from the first defendant to the second defendant, without any consideration. The first defendant, who had perpetrated sexual abuse and neglect against the plaintiff, sought to transfer an interest in a property to the second defendant. The plaintiff, fearing that the property may be disposed of, applied for an ex parte freezing order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's concerns were sufficiently serious to justify the making of a freezing order. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case for recovery of the property and whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the order was not made.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a sufficiently serious issue to be tried, as there was evidence of sexual abuse and neglect by the first defendant. The court also found that the transfer of the interest in the property was suspicious and that there was a real possibility that the property would be disposed of if the order was not made. The court noted that the second defendant had been aware of the plaintiff's claim for damages for the abuse and neglect, and had not sought to distance himself from the first defendant. The court concluded that the plaintiff had a good arguable case for recovery of the property and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the order was not made.

The court made an order freezing the assets of the second defendant, including the interest in the property transferred from the first defendant. The order was made on an ex parte basis, without notice to the second defendant, due to the urgency of the situation. The court also ordered that the second defendant provide a detailed account of all assets, including the interest in the property, and directed that any proceeds from the sale of the property be held in trust pending the outcome of the proceedings. The orders were made to prevent the second defendant from disposing of the property and to preserve the plaintiff's right to recover damages for the abuse and neglect suffered.