Talacko v Talacko

[2009] VSC 349

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. › Foreign assets
5. › Whether exceptional circumstances required
6. › Scope of Mareva orders over foreign assets
7. › Whether court has power to restrain dealings with assets located overseas
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Mareva orders
4. › Requirements for obtaining
5. › Good arguable case
6. › Meaning of 'good arguable case'
7. › Whether synonymous with 'realistic prospect of success'
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Mareva orders
4. › Mandatory orders
5. › Reversal of impugned transactions
6. › Meaning of 'status quo'
7. › Whether status quo necessarily determined as at date of application
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Mareva orders
4. › Third parties
5. › Whether Mareva order may restrain activities of third party

Quick Take

The discretion to make a Mareva order in respect of foreign assets is not confined to 'exceptional cases'; the court has power to make such orders provided the defendant is subject to the court's jurisdiction, and the discretion should be exercised with circumspection and care. The 'status quo' for the purposes of a Mareva order is not necessarily the state of affairs at the time of the application but is to be determined on the facts of each case. In an appropriate case, a Mareva order may include mandatory relief reversing an impugned transaction to preserve the status quo as at the time selected by the court. A 'good arguable case' for Mareva purposes is synonymous with a 'realistic prospect of success'.