Multispan v Portland (No 3)

Multispan sought an injunction against Portland to prevent the frustration of a judgment debt, seeking Mareva relief. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate application of Mareva relief in the context of preventing the frustration of a judgment pending the exercise of judgment creditor remedies. The central legal issue was whether Mareva relief could be used to prevent the frustration of judgment debt and whether it could operate as a form of security or be a substitute for execution.

The court held that Mareva relief, while available to prevent the frustration of judgment pending the exercise of judgment creditor remedies, should not be used as a substitute for execution or as a form of security. The court emphasised that the primary purpose of Mareva relief is to prevent the dissipation of assets that may otherwise frustrate the enforcement of a judgment. The court further ruled that an order that assets not be dealt with except in narrowly defined ways, or otherwise as allowed by the judgment creditor, was not an appropriate application of Mareva relief. Instead, the court stressed that any restrictions on the use of assets should be carefully tailored to the specific circumstances of the case and should not unduly restrict the judgment debtor beyond what is necessary to prevent frustration of the judgment.