Di Palma v Chimmalee (No 3)

In Di Palma v Chimmalee, the respondents, including the liquidator of a company, sought interim preservation orders, including freezing orders, against the first and second defendants. The first defendant was awaiting trial for fraud-related offences. The first defendant's bank account was subject to a freezing order, which permitted payment of the defendants' reasonable living expenses. The respondents sought to pay past rental expenses for the second defendant out of the first defendant's bank account. The court had to decide whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the second defendant's application.

The court considered the competing claims to the funds in the first defendant's bank account. It held that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the second defendant's application for payment of past rental expenses. The court found that the first defendant had a competing claim to the funds in the bank account, and the second defendant had not established that it was appropriate to make such a payment. The court held that the second defendant had not demonstrated that it was just and equitable to make the payment from the first defendant's bank account.

The court dismissed the second defendant's application for payment of past rental expenses out of the first defendant's bank account. The court ordered that the second defendant bear its own costs of the application. The court held that the second defendant had not demonstrated that it was appropriate to make the payment, and that the first defendant had a competing claim to the funds in the bank account. The court found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the application.