A freezing order, also known as a Mareva injunction, is a form of interlocutory (or interim) order by a Court. It prevents an individual or corporation from dealing with their assets. Dealings it may prevent can be selling, disposing, or diminishing the value of such assets.
If an individual or company owes you a significant sum and you need to protect your interests, we can:
If an application for a Mareva order has been lodged against you, Aitken Whyte Lawyers can:
The purpose of a freezing order is to help ensure that a judgement can be satisfied.
If assets are dealt with prior to the payment of a judgement, this could circumvent the Court ruling.
A Mareva order preserves an individual or corporation’s assets during a dispute.
In this way, the Court is able to uphold the effectiveness of Court proceedings and judgments.
“A freezing order may be an order restraining a respondent from removing any assets located in or outside Australia or from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of, those assets.”
Mareva injunctions carry significant implications for the party whose assets are frozen. An individual or company will be limited in their use of certain assets, by Court order. For this reason, the Court has stringent requirements for granting a freezing order.
Chapter 8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) deals with Mareva orders in QLD. As enumerated in rule 260D of the UCPR, to receive a freezing order an applicant must establish that:
A freezing order can apply to any assets held by an individual or corporation. This can include assets both within and outside of Australia.
The value of the assets covered should not exceed the maximum amount of the applicant’s claim. This takes into consideration interest and the applicant’s costs.
A Mareva injunction will usually exclude dealings by the respondent for certain purposes. These can include:
To protect the efficacy of the freezing order, it may be granted, and continue to operate, after a judgment (see Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612, 623).
A Court can also make ancillary orders to ensure that the freezing order is more effective (see Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman Licence Holdings Ltd  FCA 1587, ).
A Court can direct the disclosure of information about assets by the party:
Obtaining such information can assist to give efficacy to the Mareva order (see Kuan Han Pty Ltd v Oceanview Group Holdings Pty Ltd  FCA 1063, ).
A freezing order can be made against a third party to a proceeding. It is not merely limited to the parties before an ongoing proceeding (see Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd  HCA 18 ).
Reasons the Court may make Mareva or ancillary orders against a third party are:
An individual or corporation who has a Mareva injunction against them can apply to the Court:
The Court will generally treat such an application as urgent.
A freezing order may be varied on the basis that:
A freezing order may be discharged on the basis that the requirements for an order under the UCPR do not apply. This may be that:
The respondent can also provide security for the amount of the claim through:
Depending on when a respondent provides security, this can:
Freezing order applications are complicated and carry significant ramifications. Proper experience in dealing with Mareva injunctions is essential.
Aitken Whyte Lawyers Sunshine Coast are focused on results.
Our litigation lawyers will advise you on the proper course to take if you need to protect your rights.
We can assist you to obtain an injunction or defend an application.
Aitken Whyte Lawyers can assist you with all civil and commercial disputes.
Aitken Whyte Lawyers
11/8 Pikki Street,
Maroochydore Qld 4558
Ph: +617 5408 0655
Fax: +617 3211 9311