Pickett v Amin

The matter of Pickett v Amin was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Pickett, sought the appointment of a litigation guardian for the defendant, Amin, who was alleged to be of unsound mind. The plaintiff also sought a freezing order against the property of both the defendant and a second defendant to prevent dissipation of assets. The dispute centred on whether the court had the authority to appoint a litigation guardian for the defendant and whether a freezing order was warranted.

The primary legal issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to appoint a litigation guardian under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, specifically rule 15.03, and whether there were grounds to issue a freezing order against the defendants' property. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that the defendant was of unsound mind and that the freezing order was necessary to prevent dissipation of assets.

In addressing these issues, the court found that it had the authority to appoint a litigation guardian under rule 15.03, as the application was made in the course of the hearing and there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant was of unsound mind. The court also found that there were grounds for a freezing order, as the plaintiff had demonstrated a real risk of dissipation of assets. The court noted the importance of protecting the interests of parties who may be unable to manage their own affairs and emphasised the need for careful consideration of the evidence before making such orders.

The court ordered that a litigation guardian be appointed for the defendant and that a freezing order be issued against the property of both the defendant and the second defendant. This decision ensures that the interests of the defendant are properly protected and that the plaintiff's claims can proceed effectively.