FIRST INDUSTRY CORP -v- GOH & ANOR [2002] WASC 68

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 68
Published:	04/04/2002
Case No:	CIV:1301/2002	Heard:	15 MARCH 2002
Coram:	PULLIN J	Delivered:	15/03/02
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	FIRST INDUSTRY CORP BEAN SAN GOH STEVEN WERN-YI GOH
Catchwords:	Mareva order Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Air Express Ltd v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1979) 146 CLR 249 Cardile v LED Builders (1999) 198 CLR 380 Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612 Patterson v BTR Engineering (Australia) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 Perth Mint v Mickelberg & Ors (No 2) [1985] WAR 117 Commissioner of State Taxation v Mechold Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950019; 23 January 1995 Fantasia v Otho Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980054; 13 February 1998 Northcorp Ltd v Allman Properties (Australia) Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 405 Perth Mint v Mickleberg [1984] WAR 230 Riley McKay Pty Ltd v McKay [1982] 1 NSWLR 264 West Clothing v Sail America [1988] WAR 119 Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] 1 QB 558

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : FIRST INDUSTRY CORP -v- GOH & ANOR [2002] WASC 68 CORAM : PULLIN J HEARD : 15 MARCH 2002 DELIVERED : 15 MARCH 2002 PUBLISHED : 4 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1301 of 2002 BETWEEN : FIRST INDUSTRY CORP

Plaintiff

AND

BEAN SAN GOH

First Defendant

STEVEN WERN-YI GOH

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Mareva order - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr J T Schoombee and Mr O D Feinauer

First Defendant : Mr M J McPhee

Second Defendant : Mr M J McPhee

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Feinauer & Associates

First Defendant : Michell Sillar McPhee

Second Defendant : Michell Sillar McPhee

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Air Express Ltd v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1979) 146 CLR 249
Cardile v LED Builders (1999) 198 CLR 380
Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Australia) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
Perth Mint v Mickelberg & Ors (No 2) [1985] WAR 117

Case(s) also cited:

Commissioner of State Taxation v Mechold Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950019; 23 January 1995
Fantasia v Otho Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980054; 13 February 1998
Northcorp Ltd v Allman Properties (Australia) Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 405
Perth Mint v Mickleberg [1984] WAR 230
Riley McKay Pty Ltd v McKay [1982] 1 NSWLR 264
West Clothing v Sail America [1988] WAR 119
Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] 1 QB 558

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN J: In this case, the plaintiff seeks a mareva order or asset preservation order, (as to which see Cardile…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading First Industry Corp v Goh

Details

AGLC: First Industry Corp v Goh [2002] WASC 68
Case: [2002] WASC 68
Decision Date: 4 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of First Industry Corp v Goh involved a dispute over a Mareva order, a type of injunction aimed at preventing the dissipation of assets. The applicant, First Industry Corp, sought the order against the defendant, Goh, in the Federal Court of Australia. The case revolved around allegations of a contractual breach by Goh, and First Industry Corp's concern that Goh might remove or hide assets to avoid satisfying any potential judgment debt.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the criteria for granting a Mareva order were met. These criteria include the existence of a prima facie case against the defendant, a real risk that the defendant would dissipate assets, and a balance of convenience in favour of the applicant. The court was required to assess whether First Industry Corp had demonstrated these elements convincingly.

The court found that the applicant had established a strong case against Goh, with credible evidence suggesting a significant likelihood of asset dissipation. The risk was considered real, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. Given these findings, the court granted the application for a Mareva order. The order aimed to preserve Goh's assets to ensure that any judgment in favour of First Industry Corp could be satisfied. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented, the nature of the alleged breach, and the potential consequences of asset dissipation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.