Heriot & Maverick (No 2)

Her Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales (the Attorney General) and Maverick Entertainment Pty Ltd (Maverick) were the parties before Macmillan J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned Maverick's application to set aside a freezing order that had been granted ex parte against it. The Attorney General sought to enforce a judgment obtained in England against Maverick, alleging that Maverick had engaged in fraudulent conduct to dissipate assets and avoid satisfying the English judgment. Maverick contended that the freezing order should not have been granted, or alternatively, should be set aside, on grounds including that the Attorney General had failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts to the court when seeking the ex parte order.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Attorney General had satisfied the requirements for obtaining a freezing order under the relevant rules of court, particularly concerning the need to demonstrate a good arguable case and the risk of dissipation of assets. A key question was whether Maverick's alleged fraudulent conduct in relation to the English judgment and its subsequent asset movements constituted sufficient grounds for the freezing order to remain in place. The court also had to consider the principles governing applications to set aside freezing orders, including the duty of full and frank disclosure owed by an applicant seeking ex parte relief.

Macmillan J found that the Attorney General had established a good arguable case that Maverick was liable for the English judgment and had demonstrated a real risk of dissipation of assets. The court was satisfied that Maverick's conduct, including the transfer of assets to related entities, supported the conclusion that there was a genuine risk that any judgment in favour of the Attorney General would be rendered unsatisfied. Furthermore, the court determined that the Attorney General had met the obligation of full and frank disclosure, finding no material omissions or misrepresentations in the application for the freezing order.

Consequently, Macmillan J dismissed Maverick's application to set aside the freezing order. The court ordered that the freezing order continue in force, subject to any further order of the court, and that Maverick pay the Attorney General's costs of the application.