SETTLERS HONEY LIMITED v FIRST HONEY NZ LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1086

SETTLERS HONEY LIMITED v FIRST HONEY NZ LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1086

The Court granted a freezing order because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case on constructive trust and money had and received, the respondent held identifiable bank assets, and there was a real risk of dissipation (distinct from payment of valid debts) given the arrangement that diverted payment to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 1086
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Settlers Honey Limited; Defendant/respondent: First Honey NZ Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Dispute (freezing Order Application) / Interim Without Notice Application for Freezing and Ancillary Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Freezing order and ancillary disclosure order granted without notice; matter to be recalled on 21 May 2021
Legal Topics
Freezing Order (mareva), Constructive Trust, Money Had and Received, Ancillary Disclosure Orders, Dissipation Risk, Without Notice Relief
Equity Trusts Civil Procedure Contract Injunctions Banking and Finance Freezing Order (mareva) Constructive Trust +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Settlers Honey Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

First Honey NZ Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Dispute (freezing Order Application) / Interim Without Notice Application for Freezing and Ancillary Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant has a good arguable case on constructive trust and money had and received
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has assets to which a freezing order can attach
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted a freezing order because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case on constructive trust and money had and received, the respondent held identifiable bank assets, and there was a real risk of dissipation (distinct from payment of valid debts) given the arrangement that diverted payment to the respondent and its failure to account; consequently interim freezing and ancillary disclosure orders without notice were appropriate and limited to 21 May 2021.

Court Disposition

Freezing order and ancillary disclosure order granted without notice; matter to be recalled on 21 May 2021

Orders

  • Freezing order granted against First Honey NZ Limited limited to 21 May 2021 in terms of High Court Rules r 32.7
  • Ancillary order requiring First Honey NZ Limited to disclose its bank accounts and produce bank statements to the applicant (as amended to require disclosure by First Honey NZ rather than by banks)