MOGILIN V JO HC AK CIV 2011-404-1584

MOGILIN V JO HC AK CIV 2011-404-1584

The court assumed (without deciding) that plaintiffs had a good arguable case but dismissed the freezing order because there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation: the Lincoln property is protected by a caveat making a freezing order unnecessary, defendants were not shown to be flight risks given...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-11623679_7f3b_4718_9c92_79bb3ea89e05.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Anatoly Mogilin; Second Plaintiff: Marfa Mogilin; First Defendant: Nam Geun Jo; Second Defendant: Martina Jho
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for a Freezing Order (mareva) / Hearing on Interim Application (freezing Order)
Outcome
Application for freezing order dismissed; oral application to join Eurostile dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Order (mareva Injunction), Undertaking as to Damages, Joinder, Caveat, Dissipation of Assets, Constructive Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Service/substituted Service
Civil Procedure Equity Injunctions Property Law Trusts Contract Law Tax Law Freezing Order (mareva Injunction) +7 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anatoly Mogilin

First Plaintiff

Marfa Mogilin

Second Plaintiff

Nam Geun Jo

First Defendant

Martina Jho

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for a Freezing Order (mareva) / Hearing on Interim Application (freezing Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs have a good arguable case on the substantive claims
  2. 2 Whether defendants have assets within jurisdiction amenable to a freezing order
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets rendering defendants judgment‑proof

Ratio Decidendi

The court assumed (without deciding) that plaintiffs had a good arguable case but dismissed the freezing order because there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation: the Lincoln property is protected by a caveat making a freezing order unnecessary, defendants were not shown to be flight risks given their Christchurch ties and ongoing litigation, and there was no persuasive evidence that shares in Eurostile would be sold or dissipated pending trial.

Court Disposition

Application for freezing order dismissed; oral application to join Eurostile dismissed

Orders

  • Freezing order application dismissed
  • Oral application to join Eurostile dismissed