Samimi v Seyedabadi; Seyedabadi v Samimi

In the proceedings of *Samimi v Seyedabadi; Seyedabadi v Samimi*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for a freezing order and a related application for an extension of time to file a notice of cross-appeal. The dispute involved an underlying costs judgment and a prospective judgment, with the applicant seeking to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the applicant for the freezing order had established a good arguable case and whether there was a demonstrable danger that any existing or prospective judgment would be unsatisfied due to the respondent's conduct. Additionally, the Court was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time for the cross-appellant to file and serve his notice of cross-appeal, pursuant to Rule 51.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

McColl JA granted the extension of time for the cross-appellant to file and serve his notice of cross-appeal, ordering that the cross-appellant pay the costs of that application. The Court also addressed the notice of motion for a freezing order, with the specific orders in relation to this motion detailed in paragraphs [90] and [91] of the judgment. The Court's reasoning and the principles applied in determining these matters are set out in the full judgment.