Prentice v Constantinidis (No.2)

In *Prentice v Constantinidis (No.2)*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to determine whether a party had breached an undertaking given to the court. The dispute arose from a previous proceeding where the defendant, Mr. Constantinidis, had given an undertaking to the court that he would not take any steps to dissipate or deal with certain assets pending the final determination of the proceedings. The plaintiff, Ms. Prentice, alleged that Mr. Constantinidis had breached this undertaking by transferring shares in a company to his wife.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the transfer of shares by Mr. Constantinidis to his wife constituted a breach of his undertaking to the court. This required the court to consider the scope and meaning of the undertaking, particularly whether the transfer of shares to a spouse fell within the prohibition against dissipating or dealing with assets. The court also had to assess whether the transfer was made with the intention of frustrating the plaintiff's claim or the court's orders.

Judge Manousaridis found that the undertaking given by Mr. Constantinidis was clear and unambiguous, prohibiting any disposition of the specified assets. The court reasoned that a transfer of shares, even to a spouse, constituted a dealing with and disposition of those assets. The judge concluded that Mr. Constantinidis had breached his undertaking by transferring the shares, as this action was a clear contravention of the terms he had agreed to before the court. The court emphasised the importance of upholding undertakings given to the court to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.