Tagget v Sexton

[2009] NSWCA 91

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory relief
3. › Freezing orders
4. › Orders against third parties
5. › Whether District Court has jurisdiction and implied power to make freezing order against non-party
6. › Principles governing grant of Mareva relief against third parties
7. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 44, 46
8. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 5, 90
9. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 25.11, 25.14
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory relief
3. › Freezing orders
4. › Extent of order
5. › Whether order exceeded what was reasonably necessary
6. › Whether court can effectively make third party guarantor of judgment debtor's debt
1. Courts and Judges
2. › District Court
3. › Jurisdiction and powers
4. › Implied powers of inferior courts
5. › Power to make orders incidental and necessary to enforcement jurisdiction
6. › Distinction between inherent jurisdiction and implied powers
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Interlocutory proceedings
4. › Entitlement to appellate intervention where costs ordered at interlocutory stage
5. › Failure to make submissions on costs at first instance

Quick Take

The District Court of NSW has an implied power to make freezing orders against third parties in conformity with the Cardile v LED Builders principles, notwithstanding that it is an inferior court. However, UCPR r 25.14(5)(b) only authorises such orders where the relevant process is available in the District Court itself, not in another court. A freezing order against a third party cannot extend so far as to effectively make the third party a guarantor of the judgment debtor's debt where the third party has not received moneys or assets from the impugned transactions.