Jane Panagaris McEntee & Anor v SJ Berry Pty Ltd & Anor

The case of Jane Panagaris McEntee and another versus SJ Berry Pty Ltd and another was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary focus of the case was the applicants' application to modify a Freezing Order to increase the specified amount and the second respondent's application to set aside or discharge the Freezing Order. The background of the case involves a previous judgment in favour of the applicants against all respondents, including the first and second respondents, for $204,243.00, including pre-judgment interest, in relation to deceit concerning encroachment issues. Following this judgment, the applicants sought a Freezing Order to prevent the respondents from disposing of their assets up to the value of $400,000.00. The court granted this order on 2 November 2021, and the applicants subsequently sought to increase the amount of the Freezing Order.

The legal issues in the case pertained to the applicants' entitlement to an increased amount for the Freezing Order and the second respondent's argument that the Freezing Order should be set aside or discharged. The court needed to determine whether the balance of convenience still favoured the continuation of the Freezing Order and whether the second respondent had demonstrated that it was in the interests of justice to set aside or discharge the order. The applicants argued that the amount of the Freezing Order should be increased to cover potential costs and damages, while the second respondent argued that the order should be discharged because the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support the increased amount. The court considered the likelihood of the judgment being satisfied and whether the Freezing Order was still necessary to protect the applicants' interests.

The court dismissed the second respondent's application to set aside or discharge the Freezing Order, finding that the balance of convenience still favoured its continuation. The court was satisfied that there was a danger that the judgment would be wholly or partially unsatisfied because the respondents' assets might be disposed of or diminished in value. The court granted the applicants' application to increase the amount specified in the Freezing Order, setting it at $580,000. The court found that there was a proper basis for the continuation of the Freezing Order, taking into account the risk of the judgment being unsatisfied and the need to protect the applicants' interests. The applicants were directed to bring into Court minutes of order reflecting the terms of the Freezing Order.