Terrblanche v Jewell & Anor

[2013] QCA 205

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders
3. › Mareva injunctions
4. › Scope and requirements
5. › Whether freezing order should restrain funds beyond amount of potential liability
6. › Whether appropriate exceptions for just debts and expenses required
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 260A
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders
3. › Evidentiary requirements
4. › Whether evidence established net liability sufficient to justify freezing order
5. › Whether applicant must adduce evidence of potential net liability
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Inferior courts
3. › District Court of Queensland
4. › Jurisdiction
5. › Whether jurisdiction exhausted after determination of substantive claims
6. › Whether District Court retains jurisdiction to make freezing orders in aid of costs orders after trial
7. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), ss 68, 69
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Transfer of proceedings
3. › Discretion to transfer or strike out
4. › Whether primary judge erred in refusing to transfer application to Supreme Court
5. › Relevance of delay and failure to file substantive application
6. › Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 28

Quick Take

A freezing order application that seeks to restrain the entirety of a fund without limiting the orders to the period necessary for execution, and without providing the usual exceptions for just debts and expenses, will be refused as it would impermissibly prefer the applicant over other creditors. An applicant for a freezing order must adduce evidence establishing a potential net liability sufficient to justify the order sought. Under s 28(3) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), a court may strike out a proceeding rather than transfer it where the applicant has delayed and failed to file the substantive application in the appropriate court.