EGER PROPERTIES LIMITED v MATAKANA 2008 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1102

EGER PROPERTIES LIMITED v MATAKANA 2008 LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1102

Given communications between counsel and the sworn affidavit denying any intention to abscond and asserting rents were up to date, there was no proper basis to grant the extreme freezing and travel restraint orders sought; the applicants withdrew the application and the Court awarded costs to the respondents.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1102
Parties
First Applicant: Eger Properties Limited; Second Applicant: Matakana 2008 Limited; Third Applicant: Susan Therezia Baranyai; First Respondent: DK Kelsey Limited; Second Respondent: Jonathan Richard Brandt; Third Respondent: Natacha Ann Brandt
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders (ex Parte) / Urgent Hearing; Application Withdrawn at Hearing; Costs Reserved and Awarded
Outcome
Application withdrawn; no freezing or travel restraint orders made; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Asset Restraint, Passport Surrender/travel Restraint, Lease Arrears, Sale of Business, Contingent Claims
Civil Procedure Injunctions and Freezing Orders Property Law Contract/commercial Law Freezing Order Asset Restraint Passport Surrender/travel Restraint Lease Arrears +2 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eger Properties Limited

First Applicant

Matakana 2008 Limited

Second Applicant

Susan Therezia Baranyai

Third Applicant

DK Kelsey Limited

First Respondent

Jonathan Richard Brandt

Second Respondent

Natacha Ann Brandt

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders (ex Parte) / Urgent Hearing; Application Withdrawn at Hearing; Costs Reserved and Awarded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extreme ex parte freezing and travel restraint orders should be granted
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk respondents would abscond and dissipate assets
  3. 3 Whether the third applicant had sufficient standing given a contingent claim

Ratio Decidendi

Given communications between counsel and the sworn affidavit denying any intention to abscond and asserting rents were up to date, there was no proper basis to grant the extreme freezing and travel restraint orders sought; the applicants withdrew the application and the Court awarded costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; no freezing or travel restraint orders made; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • Application withdrawn
  • No freezing orders or travel restraint orders made