GE Capital Australia v Davis

In the case of GE Capital Australia v Davis, the dispute revolved around the application of a Mareva injunction to preserve the defendant's assets during the course of litigation. GE Capital Australia sought to prevent Davis from disposing of her property, given concerns that she might dissipate her assets to avoid satisfying a potential judgment in GE Capital's favour. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were the criteria for granting a Mareva injunction and the nature of evidence required to support such an application. GE Capital argued that Davis's actions, including selling her house, refusing to disclose the basis of her defence, and failing to appear in court, justified the injunction. Davis contested the application on the grounds that GE Capital had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the stringent standards required for such an injunction.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, which emphasised the need for a strong prima facie case and a serious question to be tried, coupled with the risk of dissipation of assets. The court determined that GE Capital had made out a compelling case based on Davis's behaviour and the likelihood of her defeating the proceedings. The court concluded that the overriding purpose of the litigation, to ensure just, quick, and cheap resolution of real issues, would be undermined if Davis were permitted to dissipate her assets. Accordingly, the court granted the injunction, preserving Davis's property pending the outcome of the litigation.