Sleiman v Afeich (No 2)

In this case, Sleiman sued Afeich over a dispute regarding the ownership of property. The court had to determine whether a Mareva order, an injunction that restrains a party from disposing of assets to prevent dissipation of assets, could be made against a third party who was not a party to the original proceedings. The dispute centred on whether the third party, in this case a bank, held assets that belonged to the defendant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Mareva order could be enforced against a third party who was not a party to the original proceedings. The court needed to consider the scope and applicability of the Mareva injunction in Australian law, and whether it could be extended to include non-parties, particularly financial institutions that hold assets on behalf of the defendant.

The court found that Mareva orders could indeed be made against third parties, such as banks, if the plaintiff could establish a prima facie case that the defendant had assets within the jurisdiction that could be used to satisfy a potential judgment debt. The court reasoned that the purpose of the Mareva order was to prevent the dissipation of assets, and it could be applied to third parties if they were holding assets on behalf of the defendant. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the order was not oppressive and that it was necessary to prevent the dissipation of assets.

The court granted the Mareva order against the bank, holding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in the underlying proceeding and that there was a real risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets. The order required the bank to freeze the defendant's accounts and prevent any funds from being withdrawn or transferred.