Noicos v Dawson

In the case of Noicos v Dawson, the applicants sought freezing orders against several respondents, alleging that the respondents had contravened Section 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). The respondents were alleged to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to financial services, specifically in relation to investments in a cryptocurrency hedge fund. The Federal Court was required to determine whether there was a reasonably arguable case that the respondents had engaged in the alleged conduct, whether there was a risk of dissipation of assets if the orders were not made, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the orders.

The court found that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for the grant of the freezing orders. The applicants had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a reasonably arguable case against the respondents for misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to financial services. The applicants had also demonstrated that there was a risk of dissipation of assets if the orders were not made. The balance of convenience also favoured the grant of the orders, as the applicants had shown that they were likely to succeed in their proceedings against the respondents and that the respondents had the means to compensate the applicants if they were ultimately found to be liable.

Based on the above findings, the court allowed the application for the issue of freezing orders against the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth respondents. The court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for the grant of freezing orders, and that it was appropriate to make the orders in the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the third respondent, Mr Yap, had not opposed the continuation of the freezing orders concerning him, and that the applicants had satisfied the court that the continuation of the orders was appropriate.