Anthony Messina represented the first respondent/first cross claimant, instructed by Irish Bentley Lawyers.
By interlocutory application, the applicants sought an interim freezing order over sale proceeds obtained by the first and second respondents from lot sales in a Pimpama development. The first respondent contended that the applicants had not established a risk of dissipation of the proceeds, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the freezing order.
Meagher J agreed, dismissing the application for an interim freezing order. Her Honour held that the applicants had failed to establish either a risk of dissipation or that the balance of convenience warranted granting the interim freezing order.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
