Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd

[2012] WASC 382

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders (Mareva orders)
3. › Undertakings as to damages
4. › Enforcement of undertakings
5. › Whether orders ought not to have been made
6. › Whether related proceedings not involving same parties could establish that orders ought not to have been made
7. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 52A
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders (Mareva orders)
3. › Undertakings as to damages
4. › Discharge of undertakings
5. › Whether undertakings serve no useful purpose
6. › Whether savings for innocent third parties required
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders (Mareva orders)
3. › Undertakings as to damages
4. › Prima facie case of damage
5. › Distinction between damage caused by orders and damage caused by proceedings
6. › Whether costs of proceedings recoverable under undertaking
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders (Mareva orders)
3. › Undertakings as to damages
4. › Delay in claiming compensation
5. › Whether delay of 21 months fatal to claim

Quick Take

A claimant seeking compensation under an undertaking given for freezing orders must show a prima facie case that damage was caused by the restraints imposed by the orders themselves, not merely by the proceedings in which the orders were sought. Findings in related proceedings to which the party who obtained the freezing orders is not a party cannot be used to establish that the orders ought not to have been made, whether by issue estoppel, privity, judgment in rem, or abuse of process. Delay of 21 months in bringing a compensation claim, while long, may be excused where sufficiently explained.