Talacko v Talacko (No 2)

Talacko v Talacko (No 2) involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction. The plaintiff feared that the defendant would breach a freezing order once he departed. The legal issues centred on the source of the court's power to grant such an order and whether the defendant could be restrained until judgment was given or he paid into Court a sum of money representing the value of the properties subject to the freezing order. The court considered whether the writ of ne exeat colonia, arrest in pending provisions, statutory power to grant injunctions, and the court's inherent jurisdiction were applicable.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 and the Supreme Court Act 1986. It concluded that the court had the authority to issue an injunction to prevent the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction. The court also found that the defendant could be restrained until judgment was given or he paid into Court the value of the properties subject to the freezing order. The court relied on the statutory power to grant injunctions and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The court further noted the relevance of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, r.40.04, which allowed for the cross-examination of deponents in interlocutory applications.

The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction until judgment was given or he paid into Court the value of the properties subject to the freezing order. The court's decision was based on the statutory provisions and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The defendant was restrained from leaving the jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the freezing order. This decision provided clarity on the court's power to grant such an injunction and the conditions under which the defendant could be restrained.