McNamara Business & Property Law v Kasmeridis (No 2)

McNamara Business & Property Law sought a charge over property belonging to the defendants and subsequently applied for a Mareva injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with their assets. The plaintiff had previously been awarded costs but these had not been taxed. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was a judgment creditor and if so, whether it could enforce the judgment through a charging order under the Enforcement of Judgments Act 1991 (SA). Additionally, the court had to decide if it had jurisdiction to grant the Mareva injunction.

The court found that the plaintiff was not a judgment creditor until the costs were ascertained and an allocatur issued. Given this, the plaintiff's application for a charging order was dismissed. Regarding the Mareva injunction, the court held that it had jurisdiction over the matter as the costs order was sufficient to invoke the court's authority. However, the plaintiff failed to establish a risk of the defendants' assets being dissipated, leading to the refusal of the application for a Mareva injunction.

In summary, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a charge over the defendants' property as the plaintiff was not yet a judgment creditor. The court also refused the plaintiff's application for a Mareva injunction, finding insufficient evidence to support the risk of asset dissipation.