Print Management Australia Pty Ltd v Pasupati

In Print Management Australia Pty Ltd v Pasupati, the plaintiff sought to re-impose freezing orders against the defendant, who was a director of the company, following an ex parte order made by the court. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to disclose relevant information and that there was a real apprehension of dissipation of assets that would otherwise be available to meet any judgment. The defendant, in turn, contended that the plaintiff had not discharged its duty of disclosure and that there was no good arguable case of a breach of directors' duties.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff had discharged its duty of disclosure on the ex parte application for freezing orders, whether the freezing orders should be re-imposed, whether there was a good arguable case of a breach of directors' duties, and whether the plaintiff had shown a real apprehension of dissipation of assets that would otherwise be available to meet any judgment. The court examined the evidence and submissions made by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles.

The court found that the plaintiff had not discharged its duty of disclosure on the ex parte application for freezing orders, and that the orders should not be re-imposed. The court also found that there was no good arguable case of a breach of directors' duties, and that the plaintiff had not shown a real apprehension of dissipation of assets that would otherwise be available to meet any judgment. The court held that the defendant's failure to disclose relevant information did not justify the re-imposition of the freezing orders, and that the plaintiff had not established the necessary criteria for such orders to be made.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for the re-imposition of the freezing orders, and made no order as to costs.