In the matter of C & L Cameron Pty Ltd - GB Gazzana v Nadalan Enterprises Pty Ltd; AF Gazzana v Nadalan Enterprises Pty Ltd

The case before the court involved an application by C & L Cameron Pty Ltd - GB Gazzana and AF Gazzana for payment of money held by the court, which represented the surplus proceeds from the sale of a property they jointly owned. Nadalan Enterprises Pty Ltd opposed the application, arguing it had an interest in the fund. The court had to decide whether the applicants had established that Nadalan Enterprises had no valid claim to the fund. The court also considered a cross-application by Nadalan Enterprises to keep the money in court pending the outcome of District Court proceedings against the applicants.

The primary issue was whether the applicants had shown that the respondent had no interest in the fund. The court noted that while the applicants had established a prima facie entitlement to the fund, they had not demonstrated that the respondent had no valid claim. The court was not satisfied that the applicants had discharged the burden of proving the absence of a claim by the respondent. The court further considered whether a freezing order or injunction should be granted to protect Nadalan Enterprises' claimed proprietary interest in the funds. The court held that the test for a freezing order required a reasonable apprehension that the fund would be dissipated, which was not established in this case. However, the court observed that if there had been an order for payment out of the funds, an injunction to protect Nadalan Enterprises' interest in the fund pending the final hearing of their claim would have been granted.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the applicants' application for payment out of the funds held by the court, finding that the applicants had not established that the respondent had no interest in the fund. The court also dismissed the cross-application for a freezing order but left open the possibility of granting an injunction to protect Nadalan Enterprises' interest if there were an order for payment out of the funds. The money would remain in court subject to the outcome of the proceedings.