Gemstone Corporation of Australia Limited v Rosario Grasso and Star Corporation Limited No. SCGRG 92/219 Judgment No. 4273 Number of Pages 3 Injunctions

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Gemstone Corporation of Australia Limited sought to perpetuate a Mareva injunction against Rosario Grasso and Star Corporation Limited following their unsuccessful attempt to obtain a judgment. The Mareva injunction, initially granted by Judge Anderson, restrained the disposal of assets by Rosario Grasso, his wife, and Oiflats Pty Ltd. Despite the plaintiff's unsuccessful claim against Rosario Grasso and successful claim against Star Corporation Pty Ltd in liquidation, the plaintiff sought to extend the injunction pending an appeal. The central legal issue was whether the court should perpetuate the Mareva injunction post-trial, given the plaintiff's unsuccessful outcome at trial.

The court held that perpetuating a Mareva injunction after the plaintiff's unsuccessful outcome at trial was an unusual course and typically not appropriate. Judge Perry considered the draconian nature of such an injunction and the fact that the defendant had already gained the benefit of a favourable judgment. The court noted that while the trial judge could assess the matter post-trial, the balance of convenience in this case leaned towards dissolving the injunction in light of the defendant's successful outcome. Judge Perry found that there was no compelling reason to perpetuate the injunction and dismissed the application, dissolving the Mareva injunction as per the initial order by Judge Anderson.

The final orders included the dissolution of the Mareva injunction and a direction for the plaintiff to pay the costs of Rosario Grasso for the application, including appearances before the court. This decision underscores the exceptional circumstances under which a Mareva injunction may be perpetuated following an unsuccessful trial outcome for the plaintiff.