Warea Pty Ltd v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd - [1986] FCA 74

Re: WAREA PTY. LTD. and STRIPE LIMITED
And: WATERLOO INDUSTRIES PTY LTD & ORS trading as DELTRITE FINANCIAL SERVICES;
WILLIAM LEONARD ARMSTRONG; LISA N. VIRBA and ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS
No. QLD G6 of 1986
Injunction

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Pincus J.

CATCHWORDS

Injunction - Mareva - respondent not joined in claim for principal relief - respondent said to be holding property of a respondent in claim for principal relief - whether sufficient prima facie case - extent of jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions.

Siskina & Ors. v. Distos Compania Naviera (1979) A.C. 210

Hiero Pty. Ltd. v. Somers (1983) 47 A.L.R. 605

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 4:3:1986

ORDER

The fifth respondent be restrained until judgment following trial of the within action or earlier order from, in her capacity as trustee of the Armstrong Trust -

(a) selling, disposing or charging or otherwise encumbering or dealing with any real property held by her in Australia;

(b) withdrawing any moneys from any bank account operated by her in her capacity as trustee of the Armstrong Trust;

(c) disposing of or otherwise dealing with any asset which she holds in her capacity as

trustee of the Armstrong Trust.

Leave be given to the applicants to amend the Statement of Claim.

The applicants do serve an amended Statement of Claim by the 14th day of March 1986.

The fifth respondent do deliver a defence to the Statement of Claim by the 24th day of March 1986.

The fifth respondent does give discovery of documents on or before the 4th day of April 1986 and that inspection take place on or before the 11th day of April 1986.

The costs of today be reserved.

The matter be set down for further mention on a date to be fixed on telephonic application to the Registrar.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an application to continue an injunction granted by Spender J. against Joan Lenore Cecelia Armstrong who is the fifth respondent. The principal application seeks relief against the other respondents, including relief on the basis that some of them have been guilty of breaches of the Trade Practices Act, and also relief under the general law. The applicants complain, in substance, that they invested moneys with some of the respondents, that they did so having been induced by misstatements of fact and that they cannot recover their money. No allegations under the Trade Practices Act are made against the fifth respondent and she is joined merely because it is thought that some of the money invested by the applicants may have come to her.

The history of the dealings between the parties is as follows. In April 1985 there was made an investment in Eurobonds in the sum of $40,000, and in early July Mr. C.M. Finlay, a director of both the applicants, was told by a Sydney financial dealer that money had been received…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Warea Pty Ltd v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1986] FCA 74
Decision Date: 04 MARCH 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Warea Pty Ltd v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd involved a legal dispute between two parties, Warea Pty Ltd and Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd, before the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue at hand was the extent of the court's jurisdiction in granting Mareva injunctions, a type of interim relief designed to prevent a defendant from disposing of assets that might otherwise be used to satisfy a potential judgment. The case specifically focused on whether a Mareva injunction could be granted against a respondent who was not directly joined in the claim for principal relief but was believed to hold property belonging to the respondent in the main claim.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether a sufficient prima facie case existed to justify the granting of a Mareva injunction against a party not directly involved in the principal claim and the extent of the court's discretion in such circumstances. The court had to determine if it could restrain the fifth respondent, who was not directly a party to the action but was said to hold assets belonging to a respondent in the principal claim, from disposing of these assets.

The court found that there was a sufficient prima facie case to warrant the grant of a Mareva injunction against the fifth respondent. The court reasoned that even though the respondent was not directly joined in the principal claim, there was evidence suggesting that she held assets which could be used to satisfy a potential judgment against the main respondent. The court also noted that it had the jurisdiction to grant such injunctions to ensure that justice was not thwarted by the removal of assets that could be used to satisfy a judgment. Consequently, the court restrained the fifth respondent from selling, disposing, or encumbering any real property, withdrawing money from her accounts, or dealing with any assets held in her capacity as trustee of the Armstrong Trust. The court also allowed the applicants to amend their Statement of Claim, set deadlines for the filing of defences and discovery of documents, and reserved costs for later determination.

The final orders included restraining the fifth respondent from disposing of specified assets, permitting the applicants to amend their Statement of Claim, and setting timelines for the defence, discovery, and inspection of documents. The matter was to be further mentioned on a date to be fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The fifth respondent be restrained until judgment following trial of the within action or earlier order from, in her capacity as trustee of the Armstrong Trust -

(a) selling, disposing or charging or otherwise encumbering or dealing with any real property held by her in Australia;

(b) withdrawing any moneys from any bank account operated by her in her capacity as trustee of the Armstrong Trust;

trustee of the Armstrong Trust.

Leave be given to the applicants to amend the Statement of Claim.

The applicants do serve an amended Statement of Claim by the 14th day of March 1986.

The fifth respondent do deliver a defence to the Statement of Claim by the 24th day of March 1986.

The fifth respondent does give discovery of documents on or before the 4th day of April 1986 and that inspection take place on or before the 11th day of April 1986.

The costs of today be reserved.

The matter be set down for further mention on a date to be fixed on telephonic application to the Registrar.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.