National Gallery of Australia v Beljan

In the Federal Court of Australia, National Gallery of Australia brought an application against Beljan for a freezing order, arguing that Beljan had failed to pay a sum stipulated in a settlement deed. The National Gallery contended that Beljan had obtained funds through the settlement of other proceedings and there was a risk that these funds would be dissipated or transferred overseas, making them inaccessible. Beljan was not within the jurisdiction of the Court, which added urgency to the matter.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the National Gallery had demonstrated a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets or transfer of funds overseas to warrant the grant of a freezing order. The Court had to consider the likelihood that Beljan would dissipate the funds or transfer them beyond the reach of the Court, given the circumstances and Beljan's location outside of Australia.

The Court found that the National Gallery had established the necessary threshold to justify a freezing order. It accepted that Beljan had obtained funds through the settlement of other proceedings and that there was a real risk these funds would be moved out of the jurisdiction or otherwise dissipated. The Court was particularly persuaded by the risk of dissipation and the urgency created by Beljan's absence from Australia. Consequently, the Court granted the freezing order, restraining Beljan from dealing with the identified funds.

The final orders of the Court included a freezing order preventing Beljan from disposing of or transferring the specified funds. This order was designed to protect the National Gallery's interests pending further proceedings. The Court also directed that Beljan be served with the order and related documents by any means permitted under the Federal Court Rules, acknowledging the challenges posed by Beljan's location outside of Australia.