Ulan Coal Mines Ltd v Dawkins, D.S.F

[1993] FCA 1004

.LN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGI STRY ) No. NG942 of 1993

)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:  ULAN COAL MINES LIMITm

Applicant

AND :  DONALD STEWART FAROUHARSON
DAWKINS

First Respondent

REX ROWE

Second Respondent

RECEIVED DON DAWKINS & ASSOCIATES PTY

12 JAN 1994 LIMITED Third Respondent

RDEfM. COURT 0i.

-

Fourth Respondent

R & N ROWE & ASSOCIATES PTY

LTD

Fifth Respondent

17 December 1993

REASONS FOR JUDGMENZ

LOCKHART J.

There are in force at the moment certain injunctions which were granted by the Court on the tenth of this month, being in essence continuations of injunctions previously granted. There is no dispute this morning as to whether or not the mareva injunctions previously granted should be continued until Wednesday next, 22 December 1993. There is a dispute however, as to whether or not the customary exceptions to those orders should apply, that is, the exceptions relating to payment of reasonable living expenses, ordinary business expenses and legal costs. The previous orders were subject to the customary

exceptions.

There is before the Court material which it is argued on behalf of the applicant, suggests that in the absence of suitable explanation from the only persons who can give the explanation, namely, some of the respondents, that certain sums of money may have been transferred by the relevant respondents from bank accounts after the date of the making of the mareva injunctions on 3 3ecember. That day was the first occasicn on which the injunctions were made. Particular reference is made to a payment which may have been made to a Mr ~rendezi of some $100,000 in December though the precise date is not known, and a further sum of $60,000 or $65,000 to the same gentleman on 3 December, 1993. The applicants rely upon extracts from records of certain of the respondents or persons on their behalf which were discovered in Hong Kong.

In my oplnion, the interests of justice are best met (since we are talking only of a period between now and next Wednesday) by making the orders in the terms sought by the applicant and as modified by me in the course of discussion. The orders are in	terms which do not include the customary exceptions. Whether the	injunctions are continued after next Wednesday will be a matter
entirely for discussion on the next occasion in the light of the evidence that is then before the Court.
I should make it perfectly clear that the Court makes no finding of any kind that there may or may not have been a breach of the mareva injunctions previously granted.
The Court orders that the first and third respondents to file by 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 21 December 1993, an affidavit or affidavits explaining the circumstances in which the transfers or payments referred to in folios 24 and 25 of the annexures to the affidavit of Roger John Forbes of 17 December 1993, sworn and filed herein, were made, and furnishing details of those transfers and payments.
Further, the Court makes orders in accordance with the short minutes, initialled by me and placed with the papers.

I certify that this and the

preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.

Assoclate L,-

Dated: 17 December 1993

Solicitors for the Applicants :	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Counsel for the First & Third
Respondents	Mr Fitzgerald
Solicitors for the First &
Third Respondents	C o r r s  C h a m b e r s
westgarth
Date of Hearing	17 December 1993
Date of Judgment	17 December 1993