Malvina Park Pty Ltd t/as Firths the Superannuation Lawyers v Pollard

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Malvina Park Pty Ltd t/as Firths the Superannuation Lawyers brought an ex parte application against Pollard for a freezing order to secure legal costs payable by the client. The client was a plaintiff in a personal injury claim, and the legal firm sought the freezing order to protect their costs from being dissipated. The firm argued that Pollard had substantial assets that could be used to secure the costs, and they were concerned that Pollard might remove his assets from Australia to avoid payment.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the firm had an arguable case for a freezing order. The firm needed to demonstrate that there was a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the order. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the client's financial position and the likelihood of the firm being able to recover the costs from the client if the freezing order was not granted. The court also considered the potential prejudice to Pollard if the freezing order was granted.

The court found that the firm did not have an arguable case for a freezing order. The firm had not provided sufficient evidence to support the serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the order. The court noted that the firm had not provided any information about the client's financial position, and there was no evidence to suggest that the client was likely to dissipate his assets. The court also noted that the potential prejudice to Pollard outweighed the benefit to the firm. Accordingly, the court refused the orders sought and ordered the firm to pay Pollard's costs.