Daftar v Al-Khamisy

The case of Daftar v Al-Khamisy involved a dispute over a freezing order, where the plaintiff sought to freeze the assets of a prospective judgment debtor and a third party. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Daftar, sought to enforce the order in Australia against the defendant, Al-Khamisy, who was a non-resident of Australia and was not a party to the underlying proceedings in the United Kingdom.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of establishing that the criteria for granting a freezing order were met. The court needed to consider whether the plaintiff had shown that there was a real risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets, and that there was a real risk that the defendant would be unable to satisfy a judgment if the plaintiff were successful in the underlying litigation.

The court found that the plaintiff had not satisfied the onus of proof. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a real risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets, or that the defendant would be unable to satisfy a judgment if the plaintiff were successful in the underlying litigation. The court noted that the evidence provided by the plaintiff was speculative and did not provide a sufficient basis for the grant of a freezing order. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s further amended notice of motion and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of and incidental to that notice of motion.