Victoria University of Technology v Wilson

[2003] VSC 299

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Mareva orders
4. › Asset preservation orders
5. › Principles applicable
6. › Sufficiency of evidence as to risk of dissipation
7. › Standard of proof
8. › Whether plaintiff must prove on balance of probabilities that assets will be dissipated
9. › Whether sufficient likelihood of realistic risk sufficient
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Mareva orders
4. › Allegations of dishonesty in substantive claim
5. › Whether allegations of dishonesty relied upon to establish risk of dissipation
6. › Whether risk of dissipation may be inferred from nature of plaintiff's claim
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Mareva orders
4. › Balance of convenience
5. › Whether continuation of order would cause disproportionate hardship to defendant
6. › Whether strength of plaintiff's case affects balance of convenience
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Patents
3. › Ownership
4. › Employee inventions
5. › Whether invention made in course of employment
6. › Whether employer entitled to beneficial ownership
7. › Duty of fidelity

Quick Take

A plaintiff seeking a Mareva order need not prove on the balance of probabilities that assets will be dissipated; a sufficient likelihood of realistic risk in the circumstances is enough. Where the plaintiff's substantive case involves allegations of serious dishonesty, the court may infer the risk of dissipation partly or wholly from the strength of the plaintiff's arguable case. However, a Mareva order that threatens the viability of a defendant's business may be dissolved on balance of convenience grounds even where the risk of dissipation is established.