Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd; Lewis v Lamb

In the case of Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq), Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd, and Lewis v Lamb, the court was tasked with considering a dispute involving multiple parties and claims for relief. The primary issues arose from claims related to equitable remedies, specifically interlocutory injunctions aimed at preserving property pending the determination of rights, and the granting of Mareva injunctions. The case involved an application by Lewis for an interlocutory injunction to preserve property, and the defendants argued that Lewis had other sources of funding available to them.

The court examined the need for the injunction and whether there was a sufficient risk that the property would be dissipated or removed from the jurisdiction. The defendants contended that Lewis had other means to fund the litigation, which might negate the necessity for an injunction. The court considered the principles governing the grant of such injunctions, particularly focusing on whether the applicant had established a serious question to be tried and whether there was a risk that the assets would be dissipated.

The court concluded that the applicant had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and a real risk of dissipation of assets. It held that the need to fund litigation did not necessarily preclude the granting of an injunction, particularly when the applicant's other funding sources were inadequate or insufficient to cover the potential costs of the litigation. The court further found that the defendants had not successfully rebutted the presumption in favour of granting the injunction. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, preserving the property pending the outcome of the litigation.

The court ordered that the assets of the defendants be preserved and restrained from being dissipated or removed from the jurisdiction, pending the resolution of the underlying claims. The defendants were also directed to provide information regarding their financial resources and any other means of funding the litigation. This decision underscored the importance of demonstrating a clear risk of dissipation of assets and the need for adequate funding to support the litigation process.