Pure Logistics Pty Ltd v Scott

Pure Logistics brought an interlocutory application for a freezing order against Scott pursuant to rule 25.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The application was made to protect the proceeds of a claim for damages against Scott, which Pure Logistics had quantified at over $14 million. The application was supported by an unconditional bank guarantee in favour of Scott, as an undertaking as to damages. Scott opposed the application on the basis that Pure Logistics had not demonstrated a good arguable case for the full amount of the order sought, and sought costs.

The court had to decide whether Pure Logistics had demonstrated a good arguable case for the full amount of the order sought. The court found that the quantum of damages had not been established with any degree of certainty and that the bank guarantee was not sufficient to establish a good arguable case. The court found that the application was not made in accordance with the requirements of the rules and that the application was an abuse of process. The court refused the application and ordered Pure Logistics to pay Scott’s costs on an indemnity basis.

The court held that the requirement for a good arguable case in an interlocutory application for a freezing order is not a low threshold. The court held that the applicant must demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits of the claim and that the applicant must make out a case which is not frivolous or vexatious. The court held that the bank guarantee was not sufficient to establish a good arguable case and that the application was not made in accordance with the requirements of the rules. The court held that the application was an abuse of process and that the applicant must pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis.