Daftar v Al-Khamisy

The case of Daftar v Al-Khamisy before the Federal Court of Australia involved a dispute over a freezing order and the extension of a caveat. The applicant, Mr. Daftar, sought to freeze assets and extend a caveat over a property held by Mr. Al-Khamisy. The primary issues before the court were whether there was an arguable case for the freezing order and whether Mr. Daftar had identified an equitable interest in the property sufficient to warrant the extension of the caveat.

The court examined whether the applicant had established an arguable case for the relief sought. In the context of freezing orders, the court held that an arguable case required more than mere suspicion or conjecture; it needed a substantial possibility that the applicant would succeed if the case went to trial. The court also considered whether Mr. Daftar had identified an equitable interest in the property. This involved assessing the nature and extent of the interest claimed and whether it was sufficient to justify the extension of the caveat. The court determined that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated an arguable case for the freezing order or the extension of the caveat.

The court found that Mr. Daftar had not made out an arguable case for the freezing order, as the evidence provided was insufficient to establish a substantial possibility of success at trial. Furthermore, the court held that Mr. Daftar had not identified an equitable interest in the property that warranted the extension of the caveat. Consequently, the application for the freezing order was dismissed, and the application for the extension of the caveat was refused.