Sharkey v Mayahi-Nissi

The case of Sharkey v Mayahi-Nissi involved an application by the defendant, Mayahi-Nissi, for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the plaintiff, Sharkey, from leaving Australia. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The defendant sought an order in the nature of a writ of ne exeat colonia, aimed at restraining the plaintiff from departing the country due to concerns that, if successful in related proceedings, the plaintiff might abscond from the jurisdiction without satisfying an equitable demand for restitution to the defendant.

The court was required to determine whether the risk of the plaintiff leaving the country without compensating the defendant, coupled with the plaintiff's lack of significant assets in Australia and conduct that could be considered deceptive, justified issuing the injunction. The key issue was whether the risk of the plaintiff absconding from the jurisdiction outweighed the plaintiff's right to freedom of movement.

The court found that the risk of the plaintiff leaving the country without compensating the defendant was sufficiently high to justify issuing the injunction. The court noted the plaintiff's lack of assets in Australia and the deceptive conduct as factors supporting the defendant's application. The court concluded that the risk of the plaintiff absconding from the jurisdiction without providing security for the potential liability was significant enough to warrant the issuance of the injunction. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's application for an order in the nature of a writ of ne exeat colonia, restraining the plaintiff from leaving Australia.