Lawjag Pty Ltd & Anor v McKenzie

Lawjag Pty Ltd and another party, the applicants, filed a request for an asset preservation order over the proceeds from the sale of a property, contending that these funds belonged to McKenzie, the respondent. The application was before the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants argued that the property was an asset of McKenzie, and therefore, the proceeds from its sale should be preserved. The dispute arose after the applicants' initial application, when McKenzie served an affidavit annexing three agreements that evidenced the property was an asset of McKenzie.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the application for an asset preservation order should be adjourned at the instance of the applicants, given that McKenzie had served an affidavit annexing three agreements late. The applicants sought an adjournment to allow them to respond to the new evidence, while McKenzie argued that the applications should proceed without delay. The court had to determine the appropriate course of action in light of the late service of the affidavit and its contents.

The court considered the circumstances of the late service and the content of the affidavit. The agreements were executed by the sole director of the plaintiff companies, which suggested a potential connection between the parties. The court found that the agreements did not undermine the applicants' claim that the property was an asset of McKenzie. However, the late service of the affidavit and the need for the applicants to properly address the new evidence warranted an adjournment to ensure a fair hearing. Consequently, the court decided to adjourn the application, allowing the applicants to respond to the new evidence presented by McKenzie.

No final orders were made at this stage, as the adjournment was granted to allow for further submissions on the matter. The court's decision to adjourn the application was based on the need for fairness and to ensure that both parties had an opportunity to fully address the evidence presented. The adjournment aimed to provide a fair opportunity for the applicants to respond to the late-served affidavit and the agreements it contained, while also considering the implications for McKenzie's position in the proceedings.