RFD LTD -v- HARRIS [2008] WASCA 87

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WASCA 87
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	24/04/2008
Case No:	CACV:120/2007	Heard:	20 MARCH 2008
Coram:	STEYTLER P McLURE JA	Delivered:	19/03/08
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RFD LTD AIG EUROPE (UK) LTD AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY DANIEL PAUL HARRIS
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Refusal to extend mareva order Test for mareva order Whether material nondisclosure Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 3) (1998) 195 CLR 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : RFD LTD -v- HARRIS [2008] WASCA 87 CORAM : STEYTLER P

McLURE JA

HEARD : 20 MARCH 2008 DELIVERED : 20 MARCH 2008 PUBLISHED : 24 APRIL 2008 FILE NO/S : CACV 120 of 2007 BETWEEN : RFD LTD

First Appellant

AIG EUROPE (UK) LTD

Second Appellant

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

Third Appellant

AND

DANIEL PAUL HARRIS

Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : TEMPLEMAN J

Citation : RFD -v- HARRIS [2007] WASC 180

File No : CIV 2272 of 2006

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Refusal to extend mareva order - Test for mareva order - Whether material nondisclosure - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant : Mr G R Donaldson SC & Ms K A Vernon

Second Appellant : Mr G R Donaldson SC & Ms K A Vernon

Third Appellant : Mr G R Donaldson SC & Ms K A Vernon

Respondent : Mr D R Williams QC

Solicitors:

First Appellant : DLA Phillips Fox

Second Appellant : DLA Phillips Fox

Third Appellant : DLA Phillips Fox

Respondent : Bradford & Co

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 3) (1998) 195 CLR 1

(Page 4)

1 STEYTLER P: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of McLure JA. It reflects my own reasons for joining in the decision to allow the appeal and extend the mareva order.

2 McLURE JA: The appellants appealed from the decision of Templeman J made on 8 August 2007 dismissing their application to extend an interim mareva order made by Blaxell J. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered that the appeal be allowed and extended the mareva order. These are my reasons for joining in that decision.

3 The background is as follows. On 26 March 2001 the respondent was involved in an accident (accident) in the course…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading RFD Ltd v Harris

Details

AGLC: RFD Ltd v Harris [2008] WASCA 87
Case: [2008] WASCA 87
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of RFD Ltd v Harris, the respondent, RFD Ltd, sought an extension of a Mareva order against the appellant, Harris. The dispute centred on whether the court should extend the order in light of alleged material non-disclosure by the appellant. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's failure to disclose certain information justified the refusal to extend the Mareva order. The court needed to determine whether the material non-disclosure was so significant that it warranted refusal to extend the order, or whether the matter should turn on its own facts.

The court examined the respondent's conduct and found that there was indeed material non-disclosure. However, the court also considered that the matter should turn on its own facts. The court held that the non-disclosure did not justify refusal to extend the Mareva order outright, but rather the issue should be assessed in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the appellant's failure to provide adequate reasons for the extension of the order also played a role in the decision. Ultimately, the court found that the refusal to extend the Mareva order was not justified based on the material non-disclosure alone.

The Federal Court of Australia allowed the appeal, holding that the refusal to extend the Mareva order was not justified in the circumstances. The court ordered that the matter should be reconsidered in light of its judgment, and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the issue of extending the Mareva order. The court emphasised the importance of considering each case on its own facts and not relying solely on material non-disclosure when deciding whether to extend such orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.