Adams v. Adams
The Mareva injunction was denied because the claimant did not demonstrate sufficient risk of dissipation, the tax issues had been resolved, there were long delays in seeking the injunction, and granting it would unfairly prejudice the respondent who had been without agreed funds for over two years. On contempt, although the order became clear and compliance was required as of January 16, 2025, ambiguity earlier and the temporally limited and possibly mistaken nature of the claimant's non-compliance meant contempt (a last resort) was not warranted; instead the court ordered enforcement of the…
Source excerpt
- Mareva injunction
- Enforcement of settlement agreement
- Contempt of court
- Costs
- Family law act s.230