Lets Go Adventures Pty Limited v Barrett

Lets Go Adventures Pty Limited (the applicant) sought a freezing order against Mr Barrett (the respondent) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in fraudulent conduct and was attempting to dissipate assets to avoid satisfying a potential judgment. The dispute centred on the applicant's claim that the respondent had misappropriated funds and transferred assets to third parties, thereby rendering himself judgment-proof.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient prima facie case of fraud against the respondent and whether there was a real risk that the respondent would dissipate his assets, thereby justifying the grant of a freezing order. The Court was required to consider the evidence presented by the applicant in support of these assertions and assess whether it met the threshold for such an extraordinary remedy.

In his judgment, White JA applied the well-established principles governing the grant of freezing orders. His Honour noted that a freezing order is a discretionary remedy that requires the applicant to demonstrate a good arguable case, meaning a case that is more than merely plausible. Furthermore, the applicant must show a real risk of dissipation of assets. White JA found that the evidence presented by Lets Go Adventures Pty Limited did not establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case of fraud against Mr Barrett, nor did it demonstrate a real risk of asset dissipation. Consequently, the Court determined that the threshold for granting a freezing order had not been met.

The application for the freezing order was dismissed.