Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd v Naaman

In Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd v Naaman, the respondent, Naaman, was alleged to be in breach of a Mareva injunction, a court order freezing assets to prevent dissipation, which had been issued in 2014. The applicant, Jaken Properties, sought an extension of the injunction to prevent further dissipation of funds, asserting that Naaman had held $3.6 million on trust due to an unpaid 2016 judgment and had engaged in protracted efforts to frustrate the judgment. A third set of proceedings was listed for hearing, suggesting that Naaman might dissipate a further $14 million to third parties. Jaken Properties argued that the Mareva injunction should be extended to prevent this further dissipation and that the principles outlined in the cases referenced in paragraphs [39]-[48] supported this application.

The court had to determine whether a serious question was being tried, and if the balance of convenience favoured the extension of the Mareva injunction. The applicant argued that the trial was imminent, and the injunction should be extended for a short duration to prevent further dissipation of funds. The respondent did not contest the balance of convenience, and the court found that there was no evidence of prejudice that would outweigh the applicant's need to prevent further dissipation of funds. The court considered the principles of Mareva injunctions and the need to balance the rights of the parties, ultimately deciding in favour of the extension of the injunction.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged breach of the 2014 Mareva injunction and the subsequent dissipation of funds. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as the trial was imminent and the injunction would be of short duration. The court noted that there was no evidence of prejudice to the respondent that would outweigh the applicant's need to prevent further dissipation of funds. The court granted the extension of the Mareva injunction to prevent the dissipation of the additional $14 million, pending the outcome of the trial. This decision reinforced the importance of Mareva injunctions in preserving assets and ensuring that judgments are enforceable.