PHILIP LAWRENCE WHEELANS V ANDREW DU PLESSIS AS TRUSTEE OF THE HIPPO INVESTMENT TRUST HC WN CIV-2011-485-001621

PHILIP LAWRENCE WHEELANS V ANDREW DU PLESSIS AS TRUSTEE OF THE HIPPO INVESTMENT TRUST HC WN CIV-2011-485-001621

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a good arguable case on causes of action including misrepresentation and that there was a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets and of the Soil Tac product to justify interim freezing and property preservation orders; accordingly the orders were granted to remain in force until further order of the court with leave to apply to discharge or vary on 48 hours' notice.

Citation
openlaw-15c11587_76ce_4305_84b9_bc4049513858.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: PHILIP LAWRENCE WHEELANS; Second Plaintiff: JOHN WILLIAM KNOX; Third Plaintiff: PHIL WHEELANS INVESTMENTS LIMITED; Fourth Plaintiff: TRUCK AND TRAILER HIRE LIMITED; First Defendant: ANDREW DU PLESSIS AS TRUSTEE OF THE HIPPO INVESTMENT TRUST; Second Defendant: THE HIPPO INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED AS TRUSTEE OF THE HIPPO; Third Defendant: ANDREW DU PLESSIS; Fourth Defendant: NEW ZEALAND ROADING SOLUTIONS LIMITED; Fifth Defendant: ROADING SOLUTIONS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (application for Freezing and Property Preservation Orders)
Outcome
Freezing and property preservation orders granted pending further order; matter to be prioritised for timetabling and trial; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Property Preservation Order, Mareva Injunction, Misrepresentation, Deceit, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Contract, Asset Dissipation
Contract Law Equity Injunctions Trust Law Commercial Law Tort (deceit/misrepresentation) Freezing Order Property Preservation Order +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PHILIP LAWRENCE WHEELANS

First Plaintiff

JOHN WILLIAM KNOX

Second Plaintiff

PHIL WHEELANS INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

TRUCK AND TRAILER HIRE LIMITED

Fourth Plaintiff

ANDREW DU PLESSIS AS TRUSTEE OF THE HIPPO INVESTMENT TRUST

First Defendant

THE HIPPO INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED AS TRUSTEE OF THE HIPPO

Second Defendant

ANDREW DU PLESSIS

Third Defendant

NEW ZEALAND ROADING SOLUTIONS LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

ROADING SOLUTIONS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (application for Freezing and Property Preservation Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs have a good arguable case in misrepresentation, deceit, breach of contract or unjust enrichment
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk that defendants will dissipate assets such that a prospective judgment may be wholly or partly unsatisfied
  3. 3 Whether property consisting of Soil Tac product purchased with plaintiffs' funds should be preserved

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a good arguable case on causes of action including misrepresentation and that there was a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets and of the Soil Tac product to justify interim freezing and property preservation orders; accordingly the orders were granted to remain in force until further order of the court with leave to apply to discharge or vary on 48 hours' notice.

Court Disposition

Freezing and property preservation orders granted pending further order; matter to be prioritised for timetabling and trial; costs reserved

Orders

  • Freezing order over the defendants' bank accounts granted and to remain until further order of the Court
  • Property preservation order over Soil Tac product (including product stored at associate's farm in Whitemans Valley and on Wellington wharf with Toll Holdings Ltd) granted