Twigg v Twigg

The case of Twigg v Twigg was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, involving a dispute between the parties over a freezing order for the preservation of assets. The plaintiff, Twigg, sought to obtain a freezing order over the assets of the defendant, also Twigg, to prevent dissipation of assets that could result in the satisfaction of a prospective judgment being prejudiced. The defendant opposed the application on the basis that there was no real risk of dissipation and that the order was not necessary to protect the plaintiff's interests.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets existed, and if so, whether a freezing order was necessary to prevent that risk and ensure the satisfaction of a prospective judgment. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the financial circumstances of the defendant and the potential for dissipation of assets. The court also examined the balance of convenience test, weighing the risk of dissipation against the potential prejudice to the defendant if the order was granted.

The court found that there was a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a freezing order. The court concluded that the order was necessary to protect the plaintiff's interests and to ensure the satisfaction of a prospective judgment. The freezing order was thus granted, preserving the defendant's assets from being diminished in value.

The court ordered that the defendant's assets be preserved until the final determination of the case or until further order of the court. The defendant was also directed to provide full disclosure of all assets and income to the plaintiff. The case highlights the importance of obtaining a freezing order in appropriate circumstances to protect a party's interests and ensure the satisfaction of a prospective judgment.