Gould v VRG Management Pty Ltd

The plaintiffs, Gould, sought freezing orders against VRG Management Pty Ltd, the defendant, in an ex parte application, which were subsequently granted. VRG Management then applied to discharge the freezing orders. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had failed to disclose all material facts and arguments within their knowledge that the defendants could have brought to the court’s attention. This included assessing whether the non-disclosure was deliberate or inadvertent and whether the plaintiffs were permitted to treat the hearing of the discharge application as a de novo application for the freezing orders.

The court found that the plaintiffs had deliberately failed to disclose material facts that were within their knowledge. Counsel for the plaintiffs, who appeared at the ex parte hearing, had inadvertently failed to disclose material facts that were within their knowledge. The court held that the plaintiffs had not discharged their duty of disclosure. The court determined that the freezing orders should be discharged and that the plaintiffs were not permitted to treat the hearing of the discharge application as a de novo application for the freezing orders.

The court further held that the plaintiffs' failure to disclose the material facts was deliberate on their part and inadvertent on the part of counsel. The court found that the plaintiffs' conduct in failing to disclose the material facts was dishonest, and that this conduct warranted the discharge of the freezing orders. The court held that the plaintiffs were not permitted to treat the hearing of the discharge application as a de novo application for the freezing orders or equivalent orders under rule 25.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The freezing orders were discharged.

The court made no orders as to costs.