Malvina Park Pty Ltd t/as Firths the Superannuation Lawyers v Pollard (No 2)

The case involved Malvina Park Pty Ltd trading as Firths the Superannuation Lawyers, the applicant, and Pollard, the respondent. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute related to the applicant's second application for a freezing order to prevent the respondent from disposing of assets, following a dismissed application. The applicant sought the order to secure payment of outstanding legal costs.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant could justify a freezing order in the absence of a risk of disposal of assets and whether there was a point of general principle warranting the court's intervention. The court considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets to warrant the imposition of a freezing order, and whether the applicant's previous unsuccessful application should influence the decision.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets to warrant a freezing order. The court held that the first application had been dismissed due to the lack of evidence showing a risk of asset disposal. The court also noted that there was no point of general principle that warranted the court's intervention. Consequently, the summons seeking the freezing order was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.