RFD LTD & ORS -v- HARRIS [2007] WASC 180

Link to Appeal :

[2008] WASCA 87

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 180
Case No:	CIV:2272/2006	Heard:	30 JULY 2007
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	8/08/07
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed Mareva order to be discharged
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RFD LTD AIG EUROPE (UK) LTD AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY DANIEL PAUL HARRIS
Catchwords:	Injunctions Return of interim Mareva orders Material nondisclosure when orders granted ex parte Whether evidence justifies continuance of orders Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 3) (1998) 195 CLR 1 Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 Perth Mint v Mickelberg (No 2) [1985] WAR 117

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RFD LTD & ORS -v- HARRIS [2007] WASC 180 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J HEARD : 30 JULY 2007 DELIVERED : 8 AUGUST 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2272 of 2006 BETWEEN : RFD LTD

First Plaintiff

AIG EUROPE (UK) LTD

Second Plaintiff

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

Third Plaintiff

AND

DANIEL PAUL HARRIS

Defendant

Catchwords:

Injunctions - Return of interim Mareva orders - Material nondisclosure when orders granted ex parte - Whether evidence justifies continuance of orders - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Mareva order to be discharged

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Ms K A Vernon

Second Plaintiff : Ms K A Vernon

Third Plaintiff : Ms K A Vernon

Defendant : Mr D R Williams QC

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : DLA Phillips Fox

Second Plaintiff : DLA Phillips Fox

Third Plaintiff : DLA Phillips Fox

Defendant : Bradford & Co

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

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 3) (1998) 195 CLR 1
Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
Perth Mint v Mickelberg (No 2) [1985] WAR 117

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: The plaintiffs in this action are the insurers of Austal Ships Ltd, the former employer of the defendant. The plaintiffs have applied to continue an interim Mareva order granted ex parte by Blaxell J on 11 December 2006 and extended by his Honour on 19 December albeit with some variations.

2 Although the defendant was represented at the second hearing, his solicitors had not then had sufficient time to prepare evidence in opposition to the application. For that reason, although the order was extended "until further order", it remained an interim order. The plaintiffs therefore have the onus of satisfying the Court that the order should now be extended until trial.

Background

3 The defendant suffered an injury on 26 March 2001 in the course of his employment. He was involved in a trial evacuation from a vessel by an escape slide. He suffered an injury to his head, neck and back when…

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 [2007] WASC 180
Case: [2007] WASC 180
Decision Date: 8 AUGUST 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

RFD Ltd filed an application against Harris, seeking the return and discharge of interim Mareva orders that had been granted ex parte. The dispute between the parties involved allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. The orders were initially granted to prevent Harris from disposing of assets that might be required to satisfy a potential judgment against him. The court was required to determine whether there had been material non-disclosure at the time the orders were granted and whether the evidence presented justified the continuation of the orders. The court considered the facts of the case, including whether RFD Ltd had provided all relevant information to the court when the orders were made. The court found that there had been material non-disclosure and that the evidence did not justify the continuance of the orders. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the Mareva order was discharged.

The court found that RFD Ltd had not fully disclosed the facts when the interim Mareva orders were granted, which was a significant factor in the decision. The non-disclosure related to critical information that would have affected the court's decision to grant the orders. Additionally, the court examined the evidence presented by RFD Ltd and found it insufficient to justify the continuation of the orders. The court emphasised that the decision to maintain interim Mareva orders depends on the specific circumstances of each case, and the evidence provided by RFD Ltd did not meet the required standard. As a result, the court concluded that the orders should be discharged, and the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed;

2. Mareva order to be discharged.

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.