Sturesteps v Khoury

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Sturesteps and Khoury. Sturesteps sought a Mareva injunction against Khoury, which is a type of order that prevents a defendant from removing or disposing of assets within the jurisdiction. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue the court had to address was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the grant of the injunction. The court had to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine whether the plaintiff had established a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the case and whether there was a risk that the defendant would dissipate their assets.

The court considered the principles that govern the grant of Mareva injunctions, which require the plaintiff to show that there is a serious question to be tried and a risk of dissipation of assets. The court noted that the onus was on the plaintiff to establish these two elements. The court examined the evidence and submissions made by Sturesteps and concluded that the plaintiff had not provided a solid basis for the relief sought. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried or a real risk of asset dissipation. Consequently, the court determined that the application for a Mareva injunction was not warranted.

As a result of this finding, the court dismissed the application for the Mareva injunction. The court's decision hinged on the absence of evidence to support the necessary criteria for the grant of such an injunction. The court did not find it appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff due to the lack of a proper foundation for the relief sought. The court emphasised the importance of the plaintiff establishing both a serious question to be tried and a risk of dissipation of assets before a Mareva injunction could be granted.