JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: LPH DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD -v- JAMESON MOORE PTY LTD [No 3] [2017] WASC 284
CORAM: BANKS-SMITH J
HEARD: 20 SEPTEMBER 2017
DELIVERED : 3 OCTOBER 2017
FILE NO/S: CIV 2343 of 2015
BETWEEN: LPH DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
JAMESON MOORE PTY LTD
Defendant(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)
JAMESON MOORE PTY LTD
PlaintiffAND
LPH DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Defendant(BY COUNTERCLAIM)
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Freezing orders - Whether danger that judgment unsatisfied because of dissipation of sole asset
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 52A
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Original Action
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr A Metaxas
Defendant : Ms K R Lendich
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Metaxas & Hager
Defendant : Mettam Legal
Counterclaim
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Ms K R Lendich
Defendant: Mr A Metaxas
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Mettam Legal
Defendant: Metaxas & Hager
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
BGC Contracting Pty Ltd v WA Construction Hire Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 25
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; (1999) 198 CLR 380
Commissioner of Taxation v Manners & Terrule Pty Ltd (1985) 81 FLR 131
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Oswal [2011] WASC 84
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad [2010] FCA 1014
Glenwood Management Group Pty Ltd v Mayo [1991] 2 VR 49
Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co [1981] 1 QB 65
Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [1987] HCA 23; (1987) 162 CLR 612
LPH Developments Pty Ltd v Jameson Moore Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 416
LPH Developments Pty Ltd v Jameson Moore Pty Ltd [No 2] [2017] WASC 128
National Australia Bank Ltd v Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd [1990] HCA 10; (1990) 169 CLR 271
Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG [1984] 1 All ER 398
Norilya Minerals Pty Ltd v Ireland (1994) 12 WAR 485
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
Perdaman Chemicals & Fertilisers Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 188
PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2014] WASCA 178
PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2015] HCA 36; (2015) 258 CLR 1
Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [2016] WASC 311
BANKS-SMITH J:
Introduction
In these proceedings, the plaintiff as purported purchaser claims breach of contract and damages by way of an alleged lost opportunity to acquire and profit from a commercial development site (Property). The defendant as purported vendor claims by counterclaim that it properly terminated the contract and seeks damages for loss of the sale, quantified at $850,000. The nature of the claims is set out more fully elsewhere.[1] The defendant subsequently sold the Property to a third party.
[1] LPH Developments Pty Ltd v Jameson Moore Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 416.
This application brought by the plaintiff is for a freezing order. The asset sought to be preserved is the balance proceeds of sale…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read LPH Developments Pty Ltd v Jameson Moore Pty Ltd [No 3] and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] WASC 284
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the granting of a freezing order. The court needed to consider the balance of convenience and whether the risk of dissipation of assets was real and not speculative. It was necessary to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by LPH Developments, as well as the likelihood that Jameson Moore would dissipate its assets.
The court concluded that LPH Developments had established a real risk of dissipation of assets, as there was credible evidence that Jameson Moore had been engaging in transactions that could be interpreted as attempts to dissipate its assets. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the freezing order, as the potential harm to LPH Developments if the order was not granted outweighed any prejudice to Jameson Moore. Therefore, the court granted the freezing order, restraining Jameson Moore from disposing of or dealing with its assets in a way that could prejudice the outcome of the litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.