When seeking a freezing order under UCPR r 25.14 in respect of foreign proceedings, the relevant question under r 25.14(4) is whether there is a danger that the foreign judgment will be unsatisfied, not whether a local judgment obtained on registration would be unsatisfied. A party's verified pleadings in foreign proceedings asserting that the proceedings are barred by prior proceedings in another jurisdiction, combined with the absence of evidence that the party would not resist enforcement, can support an inference of danger sufficient to ground a freezing order. The presumption that foreign law mirrors Australian law does not apply to statutory provisions of civil law countries concerning enforcement of foreign judgments.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 48 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 48 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.