De Boer v Williams

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory Mareva injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing of her assets. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, De Boer, sought to freeze the assets of the defendant, Williams, to ensure that any judgment that might be awarded to De Boer could be satisfied. The dispute involved allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, all of which were rooted in a commercial relationship between the parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether special circumstances existed that would relieve De Boer from the obligation to provide the usual undertaking as to damages, which is a prerequisite for obtaining a Mareva injunction. The court had to consider the principles established in earlier cases such as Re Luscombe and National Australia Bank Ltd v Karam. It needed to determine whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the usual requirement for such an undertaking.

The court held that special circumstances existed in this case, permitting De Boer to proceed without providing the usual undertaking as to damages. The court found that the evidence presented by De Boer demonstrated a credible risk of dissipation of assets, particularly given the nature of the defendant’s financial dealings and the likelihood that the defendant would not comply with a court order. The court also took into account the potential for significant harm to De Boer if the injunction were not granted, as well as the public interest in preventing the misuse of assets. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of De Boer, issuing the Mareva injunction as sought.