← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case freezing injunctions mareva

Patterson v BTR Engineering (Australia) Ltd

(1989) 18 NSWLR 319
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtNew South Wales Court of Appeal
Year1989
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A Mareva injunction in NSW requires the applicant to establish a real risk that the defendant will dissipate assets to frustrate any judgment.

Key Principle

real risk of dissipation requirement for Mareva orders in NSW

Area of Law

Freezing Orders

Related Cases

Duties in ASIC v Bekier [2026] 5 March 2026

Unverified authority likely concerning directors' duties and potential breaches under Australian corporations law.

Hopper & Anor v State of Victoria [2026] HCA 11
Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] WASC 101

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Patterson v BTR Engineering (Australia) Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Patterson v BTR Engineering (A...