Anton Pillar Orders
Freezing orders – plaintiffs sought freezing orders including orders restraining non-party from dealing with a property or net proceeds of any sale of the property – property was adjacent to property subject of proceedings and owned by third party – plaintiffs contended first defendant retained a beneficial interest in the property and that it was its only substantial asset – held: there was serious question to be tried whether first defendant had beneficial interest in property – plaintiffs’ claim for damages against first defendant had reasonable prospect of success – order made restraining third party from dealing with net proceeds of sale of property: Kazacos v Shuangling International Development Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 835
Equity – solicitor commenced proceedings for assessment of costs – clients asserted there were no costs agreements between them and the solicitor – clients sought order similar to Anton Pillar order to obtain access to and make of copies of material on solicitor’s computer – clients were concerned that if they sought discovery in the normal manner solicitor may be able to alter or destroy evidence as to date of creation of various costs agreements – held: Court not satisfied there had been false creation of documents but there was some evidence to support the contention – for client to have to present normal application for discovery could act to clients’ disadvantage forensically – ambit of information sought was narrow – proposed orders specifically detailed what was required of recipients – consequences of orders would cause little or no prejudice to solicitor if there had been no recent creation – Anton Pillar order made: Ho v Fordyce [2014] NSWSC 1404