Morse v Riley (No 3) - [2014] NSWSC 236

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Morse v Riley (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 236
Hearing dates: 13 March 2014
Decision date: 13 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
1. Order, subject to Order 2, that the first defendant :
(a) Before 27 March 2014 swear and serve on the plaintiffs an affidavit setting out:
(i) all his assets worldwide, giving their value, location and details (including any mortgages, charges or other encumbrances to which they are subject) and the extent of his interest in the assets;
(ii) all assets which he has disposed of, dealt with, or encumbered in the 24 months preceding this order, save for ordinary living expenses of up to $1000 per week, giving their value, location and details and the extent of his interest or former interest in the assets
(iii) the value of his shares in Altroy Pty Limited;
(iv) the identity of assets held by Altroy Pty Ltd, and their value.
(b) To produce to the plaintiffs' solicitor all documents relating to any change of status of Altroy Pty Limited to a superannuation trustee company.
2. If the first defendant wishes to object to complying with paragraph 1 on the grounds that some or all of the information required to be disclosed may tend to prove that he:
a) has committed an offence against or arising under an Australian law or a law of a foreign country; or
b) is liable to a civil penalty
he must:
(i) disclose so much of the information required to be disclosed to which no objection is taken; and
(ii) prepare an affidavit containing so much of the information required to be disclosed to which objection is taken, and deliver it to the Court in a sealed envelope; and
(iii) file and serve on each other party a separate affidavit setting out the basis of the objection.
3. Grant liberty to apply.

Catchwords: ASSET PRESERVATION ORDER - disclosure of information - no question of principle.
Cases Cited: Morse v Riley (No 2) (Supreme Court (NSW), Button J, 12 February 2014, unrep)
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Joanna Louise Morse (First Plaintiff)
Joanna Chapman Investments Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Michael Thomas Riley (First Defendant)
Julianne Riley (Second Defendant)
LawCover Insurance Pty Ltd (Cross Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
T. Molomby SC, M. Fraser (Plaintiffs)
No appearance (Defendants)
J. Downing (Cross Defendant)
Solicitors:
Castagnet Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Submitting appearance (First Defendant)
HWL Ebsworth (Cross Defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/177707

ex tempore Judgment

On or about 28 January 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion seeking various orders. One of the orders sought was an asset preservation order against the then sole defendant to the proceedings, Michael Thomas Riley. In the proceedings the first plaintiff, Joanna Louise Morse, and the second plaintiff, being a company controlled by her, Joanna Chapman Investments Pty Limited, have sued their former solicitor in respect of the loss of monies that Ms Morse had recovered in respect of a serious car accident when she was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Morse v Riley (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Morse v Riley (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 236
Case: [2014] NSWSC 236
Decision Date: 13 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morse v Riley (No 3) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Morse, and the defendant, Riley, concerning the preservation of assets. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Morse sought an order to preserve certain assets held by Riley, arguing that these assets were necessary to secure a potential judgment in a separate proceeding. The dispute centred on the disclosure of information and whether there were any principles that would prevent the granting of the asset preservation order.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the disclosure of information regarding the asset preservation order should be limited to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the order should be granted based on the evidence presented and whether there were any principles that would prevent the granting of the order.

The court concluded that there was no question of principle that would prevent the disclosure of information in this case. The judge found that the evidence presented by Morse was sufficient to warrant the preservation of the specified assets. The court reasoned that the preservation of assets was necessary to ensure that Morse could potentially recover the judgment in the separate proceeding. The judge further noted that any prejudice to Riley from the disclosure of information was outweighed by the need to protect Morse's interests.

As a result, the court granted the asset preservation order. The order required Riley to preserve specified assets to the extent necessary to secure any judgment that Morse might obtain in the separate proceeding. The court's decision was based on the balance of convenience and the need to protect the plaintiff's potential judgment.

Orders