Legal Research
Cases
Pickett v Amin

Pickett v Amin

Case [2025] VSC 400 4 July 2025

Standing

Interlocutory Orders

Stay of Proceedings

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

S ECI 2023 05623

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL JOHN PICKETT (a person under disability who sues by his Litigation Guardian, WESLEY SEAN PICKETT) and another in accordance with the Schedule	Plaintiffs
v
SHAFQUAT AMIN and another in accordance with the Schedule	Defendants

AND BETWEEN:

SHAFQUAT AMIN	Plaintiff by Counterclaim
v
WESLEY SEAN PICKETT and others in accordance with the Schedule	Defendants by Counterclaim

---

JUDGE:	Matthews J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2025
DATE OF RULING:	4 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pickett & Anor v Amin & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 400

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Freezing order — Application to discharge freezing order based on material change in circumstances — Where the plaintiff no longer has standing to pursue the proceeding — Where the undertaking as to damages is not continuing — Where the proceeding is to be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of another yet to be commenced proceeding — Brimaud v Honeyset Instant Print Ltd (1988) 217 ALR 44 — National Australia Bank Ltd v Human Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1900 — Rozenblit v Vainer [2019] VSCA 164 — Distinctive FX Pty Ltd v Van Der Slot [2016] VSCA 39.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Ms CH Sparke KC	Schembri + McCluskys
For the Defendants	Mr ST Pitt KC with Ms BHR Ridgeway	Hall & Wilcox

Contents

A.. Introduction

B.. The question of standing

B.1          The defendants’ submissions regarding standing
B.2          Wesley’s submissions regarding standing
B.3          Defendants’ submissions in reply
B.4          Consideration

C.. Applicable legal principles

D.. Defendants’ submissions

D.1         Changes in circumstances from when the Freezing Order was made
D.1.1        Nature of interests sought to be preserved by the Freezing Order have shifted
D.1.2        Delay

D.2 Merits of the Foreshadowed Probate Proceeding
D.3 Continuing financial burden of the Freezing Order

E... Wesley’s submissions

E.1          Merits of the plaintiffs’ case – arguable case
E.2          Quantum and nature of the claims made in the Recovery Proceeding
E.3          The defendants’ financial position and risk of dissipation of assets

F... Defendants’ submissions in reply

G.. Consideration

G.1 Has there been a material change in circumstances since the Freezing Order was made?
G.2 In all the circumstances of this case, do the interests of justice require the Freezing Order to be varied or discharged?

H.. Conclusion

HER HONOUR:

A Introduction

Michael Pickett was 81 years old at the time of his death on 27 February 2025.[1] Michael never married nor had children. His closest living relatives were his brother, Max Pickett, and Max’s two sons, Wesley Pickett and Scott Pickett, who were Michael’s nephews. Prior to being hospitalised in September 2023 and subsequently moving into residential aged care, Michael lived in the house he owned at 3 The Avenue, Chelsea. The Amin family lived next-door to Michael at 1 The Avenue, Chelsea: Shafquat Amin (known as Shak), his wife Rahna Amin, and their two daughters.
[1]With…

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 Pickett v Amin

Details

AGLC: Pickett v Amin [2025] VSC 400
Case: [2025] VSC 400
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pickett v Amin involved a dispute over the discharge of a freezing order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Pickett, sought to discharge a freezing order on the basis that there had been a material change in circumstances, specifically that the plaintiff no longer had standing to pursue the proceeding, the undertaking as to damages was no longer continuing, and the proceeding was to be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of another yet to be commenced proceeding.

The court was required to determine whether the material change in circumstances was sufficient to discharge the freezing order. This involved considering the precedents set by cases such as Brimaud v Honeyset Instant Print Ltd, National Australia Bank Ltd v Human Group Pty Ltd, Rozenblit v Vainer, and Distinctive FX Pty Ltd v Van Der Slot. The court needed to weigh the principle that a freezing order is a protective measure against dissipation of assets against the changes in the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the material change in circumstances did warrant the discharge of the freezing order. The court noted that the plaintiff's loss of standing to pursue the proceeding, the non-continuing nature of the undertaking as to damages, and the temporary stay of the proceeding pending another yet to be commenced proceeding constituted a significant shift in the legal and factual landscape of the case. Accordingly, the court discharged the freezing order. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the specific facts of the case.

The court ordered that the freezing order be discharged, with effect from the date of the judgment. This decision allowed the defendant, Amin, to take appropriate steps to manage their assets without the constraints of the freezing order, while acknowledging the complex interplay of legal and factual developments in the case.

Orders