Darede Nominees Pty Ltd v Caboolture 24 Hour Medical Centre Pty Ltd

[1987] FCA 397

IN THE FEDERAL COURT or AUSTRALIA )

l QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G81 of 1987

DIVISION GENERAL )

I

i

BETWEEN: DAREDE NOMINEES PTY. LTD.

Applicant

AND: CABOOLTURE 24 HOUR MEDICAL CENTRE PTY. LTD.

First Respondent

AND: GEOFTREY WALTER EDELSTEN

Second Respondent

AND: LEANNE MARGARET EDELSTEN

Thlrd Respondent

&?D: STEPHEN FRANCIS WELLER

Fourth Respondent

.AND: RALEMA PTY. LTD.

Fifth Respondent

- MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:	10 JULY 1987
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for dlsclosure of Information be dismlssed.

2 . The costs of the application be reserved.

m:

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wi@$In

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

I

c

L

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 QLD G81 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: DAREDE NOMINEES PTY. LTD.

I Applicant

AND: CABOOLTURE 24 HOUR MEDICAL CENTRE PTY. LTD.	i
:-

First Respondent

AND: GEOFFREY WALTER EDELSTEN

Second Respondent

AND: LEANNE MARGARET EDELSTEN

Third Respondent

AND: STEPHEN FRANCIS WELLE!A

Fourth Respondent

AND: PTY. LTD.

Fifth Respondent

I

PINCUS J.	10 JULY 1987	l:
I

EI[ TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

t

l

i: i:

In thls matter, I made an order on 19 June 1987 under i ..

what is described as the Mareva	prmciple. The bases on whlch I	1.
i.'

made	that	order	are set out in the	reasons I then gave, and	I
t

included acceptance that the applicant had	a good prima facie case	I
:I,

that it	had been deceived as to the securlty	which would be	:'
7 .
, ,-.
l '
! 1 ,

I	'
i

I . - n 2.

..

avallable and given. The orders which I then made d .id not inc :lude

any order for disclosure of informatlon, although one was sought.

1

!

Upon senior counsel for the respondents intlmating that	:	.~
I . .

he was unprepared to argue that aspect of the matter, it was

1

adjourned and has been heard today, Mr. Newton of counsel

appearing for the applicant, and Mrs. Wolfe of counsel for the

!

respondents. Mr. Newton has argued, and Mrs. Wolfe concedes, that

I there is jurisdiction to make such an order as is in question, and

they agree and I hold that I have a discretion to do s o .

The function of the orders which I made on 26 June, if

they work, 1s to impose an inhibition on deallngs by the first and fifth respondents with their assets. I say "if they work" because

I am somewhat doubtful, and was then, as to whether they will

achieve much in a practlcal sense. But I thought I should make

them without, of course, glvlng any assurance to the applicant

that to do so would necessarily achieve Its purpose.

The application today is made on the same material with

one exception: M r . Weller, who had previously sworn an affidavit,

has made another one in which he says, in effect, that it would be

too difficult to supply informatlon about the affairs of the first

and fifth respondents. He makes what, in the circumstances, is rather an odd remark, namely that there are necessarily involved in the successful carrying on of the businesses inter-company transactions.

1. .,

Of course, that was bound up in the original 5 .

I	I
'r

application. It was suggested that by some device the intended I,

security had been abstracted from one company in the group and

' .!

vested in another. So far from giving the Court any assurance, !

Mr.	Weller's	affldavlt	would	increase	my doubts as to	the	i c.
L
>

applicant's prospects of eventually obtaining any security.	The	l .
! ! I .

immediate purpose of the proceedings, however, is not to do that

I but to undo the transactlon, and that must be kept in mind in !

i	considering	Mr.	Newton's application	- that is, money having been
I

i	1 :
.-

I	lent	to	the first three	respondents,	the	applicant	wants It back	I.
I	I

unless, no doubt, some arrangement 1 s made suitable to It In the I .

I

meantime.

r '

!

!. *

l

l	I
.e	.:

The orders whlch are sought would require the first and	I . ' l
I ,

fifth respondents to say what they have in the bank, who owes them

money, and give an Inventory of thelr assets. Some such I ' '

information is presently before the Court, but one could not rely	i
,.:

on it In m e w of the way In which these companies have	conducted	I '
; I

their affairs. And I do not see that there is any practlcal point l.

in maklng such	an	order as 1 s sought.	No doubt it keeps up the	! I
I
1

I I,

pressure on the respondents, but I do not believe It would really

I

<.

achleve anything, and I wlll therefore refuse to make the order.

I I.

The costs today's f pplicatlon will be reserved. 1::

I I >

cerhj that this and (he 2 preceding

; : 1 ,

pages ars a true copy G+ the reasons	for	I
. -	iudarrent hcreln of H:s Honour
Mr. Justlce P~ncus
i