Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd v Naaman

Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd (the applicants) sought leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by the primary judge. The dispute concerned injunctions and asset preservation orders, as well as the removal of a caveat. The applicants had proposed to pay a sum of money into court in lieu of the existing injunctions and asset preservation regime, and alternatively sought the removal of a caveat to facilitate the refinancing of real property. The primary judge had ordered the temporary removal of the caveat to permit refinancing.

The court was required to determine whether there was a continued danger that a prospective judgment debt would be unsatisfied, whether the interests of justice favoured the continuance of the existing orders, and whether there was any arguable error in the primary judge's decision, referencing the principles established in *House v The King*.

The court reasoned that the primary judge had correctly considered the relevant factors in refusing to discharge the injunctions and asset preservation orders, and in ordering the temporary removal of the caveat. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the primary judge had erred in law or in fact, and that the interests of justice did not favour the applicants' proposed alternative arrangements. The court concluded that the applicants had not established an arguable case of error on appeal.

Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.