QPG1 Pty Ltd ACN 611 568 962 v Hemant Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee for Hemant No. 1 Investment Trust ACN 626 501 157

QPG1 Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory freezing order against Hemant Investments Pty Ltd and others, on the basis of an accrued cause of action. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether QPG1 had established an arguable case that there was a real risk that a potential judgment would go unsatisfied. The application was brought under r 260D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. QPG1 argued that it had established an arguable case that it would succeed in its claim, that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets, and that the making of the freezing order was in the interests of justice. The court considered whether QPG1 had established an arguable case, whether there was a real risk that a potential judgment would go unsatisfied, and whether the making of the freezing order was in the interests of justice. In assessing whether there was an arguable case, the court noted that the applicant's claim was based on a combination of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and a constructive trust. The court found that the applicant had established an arguable case in respect of the constructive trust claim, but not in respect of the other claims. The court found that there was a real risk that a potential judgment would go unsatisfied because there was a real risk that the respondents would dissipate their assets before judgment was obtained. The court concluded that, while the applicant had established an arguable case and that there was a real risk that a potential judgment would go unsatisfied, it was not in the interests of justice to make a freezing order because the applicant had not established that the freezing order was necessary to prevent dissipation of assets. The application was dismissed.

No orders were made. The parties were to be heard as to costs.