(b) Draft all necessary supporting affidavits including, if you assess this as needed, by yourself, Mr Canaris and the process server Fred Flatfoot.
Sub: The measures which may be taken to recover the damage allowed by the court
All legal proceedings have specific objectives which include what the parties want to recover via the lawsuit. As soon as the judge has made a judgement in relation to the party, they must take measures to enforce the decision. There are various ways in which the enforcement of judgement can be carried out. These ways are inclusive of methods like garnishment of wage, seizing the property, taking assistance from law enforcement to ensure compliance and various other methods. All these methods have their own pros and cons. Once the judge has made a filing ruling it needs to be enforced. This may even take the shape of a new case in itself. For the purpose of enforcement discovery in support of execution, proceedings to bank accounts and garnish wages and levy of assents may be required. Often asset can be identified in relation to one or more jurisdictions. This may include asking a party to get involved in domestication of judgement in the other jurisdiction. However, defendants can also avoid such judgments in case they declare themselves as bankrupt. In the present situation it has been provided via the facts that we have conducted a title search across the Northern Territory and we have not found any property belonging to the defendants. In this situation we can carry out the each outside the home jurisdiction to locate any property belonging to the defendant which may be seized. Further the process involving the identification of insolvency procedure in relation the company via bankruptcy or insolvency courts we can be sure about any other account possessed by the company. The pros of this procedure would be that it be easy to carry out and also effective. However in relation to its cons it may be a time consuming and costly process. We can even seek an order to lift or pierce the corporate veil of the company. Under this procedure even if we have identified that there are no assets or property belonging to the company we may find out the owners of the company. Under this procedure the owners may be asked to compensate in relation to the damages which have been provided by the court. This procedure would include a separate appeal before the court for the purpose of lifting the corporate veil. In case we would be able to get a judgement on our behalf by the court, we would be able o ensure that we make the directors and owners of the defendant personally liable to pay out the damages.
There are various pros and cons of this method. Firstly making a separate claim would mean that it would be again a time consuming process to gain the judgement in our favour. The cost of making the claim would also be high in this situation. In addition we cannot be sure that the judgement would be provided in our favour or not. However, if it is provided we can recover the damages.