Palmer v Parbery & Ors; QNI Metals Pty Ltd & Ors v Parbery & Anor

(2019) 136 ACSR 26; [2019] QCA 27

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders
3. › Good arguable case
4. › Shadow director
5. › Whether good arguable case requires finding of fact on balance of probabilities
6. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 9
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 260A, 260D
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders
3. › Danger of dissipation
4. › Whether applicant must prove purpose of disposition is to defeat judgment
5. › Whether risk assessed by standard of prudent sensible commercial person
6. › Whether evaluation analogous to interlocutory injunction approach
7. › Qualitative evaluation of evidence
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 260A, 260D
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders
3. › Interests of justice
4. › Whether freezing order should not be made where assets frozen exceed value of claims
5. › Whether reputational damage relevant consideration
6. › High degree of caution required
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Freezing orders
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Whether primary judge required to state whether orders made under inherent jurisdiction or UCPR
5. › Relationship between inherent jurisdiction and UCPR r 260A

Quick Take

The risk of dissipation for freezing order purposes is assessed by a qualitative evaluation of the whole of the evidence, not by the standard of a prudent sensible commercial person. The focus is on the effect rather than the purpose of the defendant's conduct. A defendant's substantial net worth does not preclude a finding of risk of dissipation where the defendant's conduct demonstrates a willingness to deal with assets in ways that could frustrate a judgment. The requirements for a freezing order under the UCPR rr 260A and 260D are not materially different from those under the court's inherent jurisdiction.