Jackson v Tamine - [2025] NSWSC 1286

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Jackson v Tamine
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWSC 1286
Hearing Date(s):	13, 14, 15 October 2025
Date of Orders:	31 October 2025
Decision Date:	31 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Duty List
Before:	Brereton J
Decision:	Ancillary orders to be made under UCPR r 25.12.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – interim preservation – freezing orders – where ancillary orders for the provision of information are sought in aid of asset preservation orders
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Deputy Commission of Taxation v Shi (2021) 273 CLR 235; [2021] HCA 22 Emmerson International Corporation v Renova Holding Ltd (British Virgin Islands) [2019] UKPC 24 H Biotechnology Pty Ltd v Shao; H Biotechnology Pty Ltd v Chen [2020] NSWSC 585 Keynes Capital Global Limited v Guo [2020] NSWCA 178 Resort Hotels Management Pty Ltd v Resort Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 730 Ward v Hoenig [2025] NSWCA 180
Texts Cited:	M Davies, A S Bell, PLG Brereton and M Douglas, Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia (10th ed, 2020, LexisNexis) P Biscoe, Freezing and Search Orders (3rd ed, 2023, LexisNexis)
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Frank J Jackson (plaintiff) Evatt Anthony Tamine (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: D Cook SC; D Krochmalik (plaintiff) T Castle SC; C Brain (defendant) Solicitors: Hall & Wilcox (plaintiff) Piper Alderman (defendant)
File Number(s):	2025/369098
Publication Restriction:	N.A.

JUDGMENT

Mr Jackson secured freezing orders, together with ancillary orders, against Mr Tamine from the duty judge (Elkaim AJ) on an ex parte basis on 25 September 2025. The Court exercised power pursuant to rule 25.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The Court was satisfied that Mr Jackson had a good arguable case on an accrued or prospective cause of action that is justiciable in the Supreme Court of Bermuda. The Court was also satisfied that there is a sufficient prospect that the Supreme Court of Bermuda will give judgment in favour of Mr Jackson and that there is a sufficient prospect the judgment will be registered in or enforced by this Court: see UCPR r 25.14(3).
On 8 October 2025, Mr Tamine exercised his liberty to apply. He contended that the ancillary orders should be vacated or varied. Mr Tamine did not seek to vacate the freezing orders (but sought to reserve the right to do so and did not concede that the orders were justified).
For the reasons set out below, I propose to vary the ancillary orders.

The character of the application

Mr Tamine submitted that the ancillary orders should not have been made ex parte. He relied on the following passage from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ward v Hoenig [2025] NSWCA 180 (at [85]):
Urgency absent a risk of defeating the purpose of the relief sought does not relieve a moving party from the obligation of notifying a defendant or respondent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jackson v Tamine

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Tamine [2025] NSWSC 1286
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1286
Decision Date: 31 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was Jackson v Tamine. The plaintiff, Jackson, sought interim preservation orders and ancillary orders for the provision of information, including freezing orders, to prevent the defendant, Tamine, from disposing of or dealing with their jointly held assets. The dispute arose from a failed joint venture, with Jackson alleging that Tamine had engaged in misconduct and sought to dissipate the assets. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and whether ancillary orders for the provision of information, including freezing orders, were justified to prevent dissipation of jointly held assets. The court needed to balance the need for preservation of assets against the rights of the defendant and consider whether the plaintiff had established a credible case that warranted such interim measures.

The court found that Jackson had made out a serious question to be tried regarding the allegations of misconduct and the need for asset preservation. It was established that the jointly held assets were at risk of being dissipated if immediate action was not taken. The court considered the balance of convenience and concluded that the granting of ancillary orders, including freezing orders, was necessary to prevent the defendant from dealing with the assets. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had demonstrated a credible case that warranted these interim measures to ensure that the assets were preserved pending the final determination of the proceedings. The court accordingly granted the plaintiff's application for interim preservation orders and ancillary orders for the provision of information, including freezing orders.

The final orders included the preservation of the jointly held assets and the imposition of freezing orders to prevent Tamine from disposing of or dealing with those assets. The court also ordered Tamine to provide detailed information regarding the assets and their whereabouts, to assist in the preservation and management of the jointly held assets. The court's decision was based on the need to prevent dissipation of assets and to ensure that the proceedings could be fairly and effectively determined.

Orders