Interlocutory procedure notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Interlocutory procedure notes PDF

Description

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEDURES Interlocutory applications are orders which occur within the proceedings for the purpose of dealing with formalities relating to the trial such as discovery and interrogating per Gilbert v Endean (1989) but are not final orders relating to the case. Unless urgent, interlocutory orders must be sought by a Notice of Motion which is returnable not less than three clear business days from the date it is filed/served: UCPR 18.4 • The notice must be supported by an affidavit. • The Notice of Motion may be served on a third party if an order sought against it: UCPR 18.5. • The Court may make directions as to the hearing and service of evidence in respect of a motion. • If urgent, the motion would usually be with limited notice (or abridged service) or without notice (ex parte). These procedures may include: -

extension of time to comply with an existing order Discovery Interrogatories summary disposition of a matter interlocutory relief reasonable access to property costs

On occasion, parties may seek (and be granted) orders without a notice of motion. • If parties consent to orders, orders can be made in chambers. • The orders of the Court are normally recorded in a document called “Short Minutes of Order” or “Orders”. A party may seek various remedies before and after trial to avoid frustration of judgment. These include: – Anton Piller Orders – Mareva Injunctions – Attachment Orders – Interlocutory Injunctions / Interim Injunctions – Undertakings – Orders to Examine Property • These may also be used after judgment is delivered but before entry.

What is an Interlocutory Injunction? Injunctions To obtain an injunction, a plaintiff must establish two things 1. That there is a serious question to be tried; and 2. That the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interlocutory injunction.

1

The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to ensure that the purpose of the action is not frustrated through the dissipation of property relevant to the matters in dispute which would ultimately adversely affect the other parties claim.

Preston v Luck (1853) “preservation of the status quo until final determination”

Liquourland v Anghie (2001) Warren J “Preserve the circumstances that exist at the time of the application until trial”

ABC v O’Neil [2006] Delay in seeking interlocutory injunction “ eyes wide open” / clearing the field

Procedure in NSW set out in UCPR Pt 25 Party seeking injunctive relief must give the ‘usual undertaking as to damages’: see UCPR 25.8.

Undertaking as to Damages The Court requires that any application for interlocutory injunction also have a ‘usual undertaking as to damages’. The undertaking can be provided by the plaintiff or by the council appearing for the plaintiff. The plaintiff should give an undertaking as to damages or the court may refuse to grant an interlocutory or interim injunction.  

The plaintiff must give an undertaking to be liable for any damage suffered by the defendant because of the operation of the injunction if the plaintiff fails at the trial. Payment may be enforced against the plaintiff in the same way as a judgment if damages are assessed in accordance with the undertaking.

• At the assessment the onus is on the defendant to show that damages were suffered because of the injunction. • If there is only minor harm then the court will not enforce payment on the undertaking.

Wentworth v Rogers (1986) Kirby P did not agree as the holding of the funds did not constitute a separate fund of property, the rules did not apply where specific property had been converted into money and the purpose of the rule is the “preservation of the identity and integrity of specific property pending the disposition of the Court” • So the summons of the claimant was dismissed and she was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

2

Service of the injunction An injunction must give the defendant notice that an interlocutory injunction has been granted and this must be served upon the defendant as per Supreme Court Rules (Vic) 2005. In Maritime Union of Australia v Patrick Stevedore Operations Pty Ltd [1998] – the Court stated that the enforcement of an injunction and the need for a person to be adequately served is critically important. The Court must be satisfied that the defendant was aware of the service and the consequences of failing to comply with the order per Miller v Eurovox Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 211.

Mandatory Injunctions Mandatory injunctions require a party to perform certain acts and this act must be a positive act rather than forcing a party ‘not to do something’ as per Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652. They are typically classified in two ways 1. Restorative in Nature – this type of mandatory injunction attempts to require a defendant to undo a wrongful act which they earlier committed. 2. Compelling in Nature – this type of mandatory injunction compels the defendant to carry out a positive obligation. Such injunctions are always at the discretion of the Court – as emphasised heavily in Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] The plaintiff is required to demonstrate that they will suffer ‘grave’ damage if an injunction is not granted, and the Court must be satisfied that the injunction will ‘substantially lower the risk’ of the defendant performing the act which would damage the plaintiffs interests as per Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652.

Interlocutory Injunctions/Interim Injunctions A court order by which an individual is required to perform, or is restrained from performing, a particular act. 

An interim injunction maintains the status quo in an emergency until the court decides whether an interlocutory injunction should be made pending the trial.

When the delay in applying on notice to the other party could cause irredeemable harm an interim injunction may be granted on an ex parte application. The plaintiff must show the need for urgency and that the defendant will destroy evidence or frustrate the proceedings. Rules for injunctions

3



The court will not grant an injunction if there is a possibility that in the future the defendant may act to damage the plaintiff.



The plaintiff must show that the defendant intends to carry out the threat and must prove that damages would not adequately compensate the injury to the plaintiff.



Either party may apply for an injunction but the defendant cannot claim an injunction against the plaintiff unless the injunction is related to some relief claimed by the plaintiff or the defendant has pleaded a cross---claim and sought interim, interlocutory or final injunctive relief against the plaintiff

ANTON PILLER ORDER What is an Anton Piller Order? Orders made ex parte authorising the seizure of documents and other evidence where there are strong grounds for believing that such evidence would be removed or destroyed if notice were to be given. The Court has jurisdiction to allow a plaintiff, or an impartial third party on behalf of the plaintiff, to enter a defendants premises to inspect, remove or make copies of the documents and to force disclosure of the persons with whom the defendant has had dealings. Courts will only allow documents obtained in the execution of an Anton Piller order to be used relevant to the statement of claims and for the purposes of which the interlocutory order was originally claimed.  If an Anton Piller order is not complied with, the defendant can be held guilt of contempt of Court per Hallmark Cards Inc v Image Arts Ltd [1977] FSR 150.

Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] FACTS: Order sought to enter premises for inspection and removal of documents and evidence.  

The order would be made in rare cases where there is grave danger in evidence being destroyed or smuggled It does not authorise the breaking donw of any doors nor the slipping of the backdoor, it simply only authorises entery and inspection by the permission of the defendants

25.20 Requirements for grant of search order The court may make a search order if the court is satisfied that: (a) an applicant seeking the order has a strong prima facie case on an accrued cause of action, and (b) the potential or actual loss or damage to the applicant will be serious if the search order is not made, and (c) there is sufficient evidence in relation to a respondent that: (i) the respondent possesses important evidentiary material, and (ii) there is a real possibility that the respondent might destroy such material or cause it to be unavailable for use in evidence in a proceeding or anticipated proceeding before the court.

Real Risk That the refusal of the order would give rise to a real risk that the defendants would attempt to remove evidence from a jurisdiction or worse, destroy evidence that is potentially incriminating on their behalf.

4

The affidavit which is lodged with the Court must make a full disclosure of all matters relevant to the hearing and justify why such an order should be issued. Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd, the Court commented that it is critical that the plaintiff detail all evidence in support of the application which tends to prove that in the absence of the order, the incriminating material would be suppressed or destroyed. The Court can reject any order if a statement of claim is not filed within the time allowed per Hytrac Conveyors Ltd v Conveyors Int’l Ltd [1982] 3 All ER 415.

Supreme Court Rules S37B provides for the rules regarding Anton Piller – or search orders – and they expressly stated the requirements in relation to application and carrying out of such orders.

An independent solicitor should be present: UCPR25.23. In the Federal Court, the independent solicitor may also take custody of the seized material. • Order will typically allow removal of evidence, copying of relevant documents and cooperation in providing information: UCPR 25.22. • Subject to an undertaking for damages. • “John Doe Order” STEP 1: POWER - Court may make order to secure evidence, requiring respondent to permit persons enter premises to preserve / secure evidence that may be relevant to anticipated or current proceedings. (r 25.19) STEP 2: REQUIREMENTS – r 25.20 (Austress Freyssinet – if below 4 satisfied, grant of search order will not be disproportionate to legitimacy of object of order) o

- applicant has strong prima facie case on an accrued COA

o

potential / actual loss to applicant will be serious if order not made; and

o

sufficient evidence that respondent posses important evidentiary material;

o

and real possibility respondent might destroy such material or cause it to be unavailable for use

Jurisdiction The court must have jurisdiction over the defendant as stated in Altertext Inc v Advanced Data Communications Ltd [1985] 1 All ER 395. The jurisdiction extends to premises situated overseas however the operation can be suspended if the foreign defendant needs time to set aside any relevant originating process.

MAREVA ORDER 5

What is a Mareva “freezing” Order? An ex parte order restraining the defendant from transferring assets outside the jurisdiction of the court. Freezing of Assests- Assets includes money/property/bank accounts. If assets are all frozen, it means that they are stuck. Purpose is to prevent the fear that the defendant sell off assets and flee the country. Frustrating the court process. Plaintiff applies for a mareva order. Hard to get.

Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk carrier SA [1975] FACTS: The owner of a ship sued the defendant charterers for breach of charterparty in the amount of US$30,800. – An injunction was sought to restrain the defendant moving any of money outside of the jurisdiction. Lord Denning MR granted the injunction: • It is recognised that a court may grant an injunction where it is right or just to do so. • This would extend to cases where there is a danger that a debtor may dispose of his/her assets before judgment. • The defendants can apply to discharge the order.

Ashtiani v Kashi (Niell J) – The Court has jurisdiction to protect a plaintiff against the risk of a judgment being rendered ineffective because in the meantime, the defendant has disposed of its assets. – The order is imposed in personam.

25.11 Freezing Order 1) The court may make an order (a freezing order), upon or without notice to a respondent, for the purpose of preventing the frustration or inhibition of the court’s process by seeking to meet a danger that a judgment or prospective judgment of the court will be wholly or partly unsatisfied. (2) 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.

6

Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of a Mavera order arises from a plaintiffs claim for the injunction and it cannot be exercised unless the plaintiff has submitted a cause of action against the defendant and convinces the Court that the defendant(s) may be at risk of moving or disposing of assets as stated in Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380. It can be refused if it is going to infringe on the rights of a innocent third party as seen in Galaxia Maritime SA v Mineralimportexport (The Eleftherios) [1982] 1 All ER 796. The order can be served on any person who is located outside the jurisdiction if any of those assets to which the order relates are located within the jurisdiction as per r 37A.07. Rules The freezing order can be an order restraining the defendant from removing assets from inside or outside Australia or from disposing of or diminishing the value of those assets per r 37A.02(2). A freezing order or any ancillary order may be served on a person who is located outside the jurisdiction if any of the assets to which the order relates are located within the jurisdiction per 37A.02(3)

Undertaking as to Damages The usual undertaking as to damages should be provided, including an undertaking as to damages or costs suffered by any associate third parties which would be affected by the order as per Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380. The order is usually framed so as to allow the defendant to go on meeting his or her outstanding living expenses, any other legitimate debts, including legal expenses incurred in defending the action, and generally to deal with his or her assets in the ordinary course of business per Prince Abdul Rahman Bin Turki Al Sudairy v Abu-Taha.

Requirements Applications for Mareva – or freezing orders should, in the High Court’s opinion, not be granted lightly as stated in Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380. The order should be expressed no wider than absolutely necessary and should specify the assets to which it applies as per Glenwood Management Group Pty Ltd v Mayo. 1. Arguable Case - The applicant must demonstrate that they have a very arguable case and that the granting of a Mareva injunction would assist the satisfaction of the final judgement per Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 1) [1990] Ch 48. They must also have an establish cause of action and the granting of a mareva injunction would assist the judgment on that cause of action. As explained in Eljay Pty Ltd v Hodby, the Court will accept that the likely effect of the defendants conduct will prejudice the decision and this is enough to satisfy the burden. 2. Assets within the Jurisdiction – The plaintiff must satisfy to the Court that the assets are within the jurisdiction as stated in Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 1) [1990] Ch 48 3. Real Risk - That the refusal of the order would give rise to a real risk that any judgment pronounced in the action could potentially remain unsatisfied due to the defendants (or respondents in a counterclaim) as per Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380. 4. Balance of Convenience - The Court must be satisfied to a high degree of assurance that the granting of an injunction is appropriate as per Queensland v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) 59 ALJR 562 and that the balance of convenience between the parties favours the making of the order per Australian Coarse Grain Pool Pty Ltd v Barley Marketing Board of Queensland (1982) 46 ALR 398.

7

The defendants actual intention is immaterial – as stated in Glenwood Management Group Pty Ltd v Mayo [1991] 2 VR 49 – it is the risk to the Court that the judgement being passed down will not be able to fulfilled if the Court rules in favour of a plaintiff. The Court will take into account factors such as 1. The possible prejudice to the defendants business; and 2. The strength of the plaintiffs case in proving that the defendant is a real risk per Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (No 2) [1992] 4 All ER 769. 3. Defendant leaving the Jurisdiction – If there is a risk that a defendant will attempt to leave the jurisdiction, the Court can order a writ ne exeat regno (let him not go out of the kingdom) to prevent the defendant leaving the jurisdiction with assets in order to frustrate the plaintiffs claim. Execution Once a Mareva Order has been issued, the plaintiff must serve the injunction promptly onto the defendant otherwise the order can be discharged as per Lloyds Bowmaker Ltd v Britannia Arrow Holdings plc [1988] 3 All ER 178. The applicant of the Mareva Order must 1. Inform, to the defendant, the fullest disclosure of all material facts - including any defences they may believe could potentially be claimed by the defendant in regards to why the defendant will not be able to satisfy the judgement per Gemstone Corp of Australia Ltd v Grasso (1993) 12 ACSR 47 2. The court can order that the defendants give discovery of its assets in aid of the injunction – per Hospital Products Ltd v Ballabill Holdings Pty Ptd. 3. The order will be as limited as possible to allow the defendant to meet the relevant money costs of running its business and daily living – per PCW Ltd v Dixon 4. Execute the Order Quickly – The plaintiff must execute the order promptly with the action otherwise they can risk the order being discharged for lack of promptness per Lloyds Bowmaker Ltd v Britannia Arrow Holdings Third Parties A third party may be made the subject of a Mareva order in circumstances in which – per Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd 1.

the third party holds, is using or has exercised or is exercising a power of disposition over, or is otherwise in possession of assets including claims and expectancies of the judgment debtor or potential judgment debtor; or

2.

some process ultimately enforceable by the Courts, is or may be available to the judgment creditor as a consequence of a judgment against that actual or potential judgment debtor, pursuant to which, whether by the appointment of a liquidator, trustee in bankruptcy the receiver or otherwise, the third party may be obliged to disgorge property or otherwise contribute to the funds or property of the judgment debtor to help satisfy the judgment against the judgment debtor.

Pre-Emptive Strikes 8

Each jurisdiction has interim preservation orders.        

Under UCPR 25.2, Court in urgent cases may: make any order on a writ for habeus corpus ad subjiciendum make any order for the custody of a minor may grant any injunction make any order extending a caveat may appoint a receiver may make an order for the detention, custody or preservation of property Make orders for the custody/disposal of property: UCPR 25.3

Attachment Order: Plaintiffs may apply for orders to protect their interests is they consider the defendant will try to leave jurisdiction – physical as opposed to in personam.

Protected Confidences The Evidence Act s126A defines a protec...