AURORA FISHERIES LIMITED V AKIRA HOZUMI HC NEL CIV 2010-442-511

AURORA FISHERIES LIMITED V AKIRA HOZUMI HC NEL CIV 2010-442-511

The freezing order is to remain in force until further order; the defendant's application to vary the freezing order is adjourned to enable him to file proper affidavit evidence of his financial circumstances (and for the Court to consider the proposed $30,000 advance); any complaint about Ocean Law's conflict must...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-ba73b733_b6b5_4a2d_b2cc_33d92571a60d.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Aurora Fisheries Limited; Defendant: Akira Hozumi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Freezing Order and Summary Judgment Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Vary Freezing Order; Adjourned
Outcome
Freezing order continued until further order; application to vary adjourned to 24 May 2011 in Nelson; formal procedure required to challenge Ocean Law's retainer with filing fee waived; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Variation of Freezing Order, Summary Judgment, Conflict of Interest in Legal Representation, Affidavit Evidence, Costs
Civil Procedure Injunctions Fisheries Law Professional Conduct/conflict of Interest Freezing Order Variation of Freezing Order Summary Judgment Conflict of Interest in Legal Representation +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aurora Fisheries Limited

Plaintiff

Akira Hozumi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Freezing Order and Summary Judgment Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Vary Freezing Order; Adjourned

  1. 1 Whether the existing freezing order should be continued or varied to allow defendant to secure a $30,000 advance against the frozen property
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's application to vary should be heard without an affidavit of his financial circumstances
  3. 3 Whether Ocean Law has a conflict of interest that should prohibit them from acting for the plaintiff and procedure for raising that issue

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order is to remain in force until further order; the defendant's application to vary the freezing order is adjourned to enable him to file proper affidavit evidence of his financial circumstances (and for the Court to consider the proposed $30,000 advance); any complaint about Ocean Law's conflict must be brought by formal application supported by affidavit and documentary evidence, and the Court waived any filing fee for that conflict application; costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued until further order; application to vary adjourned to 24 May 2011 in Nelson; formal procedure required to challenge Ocean Law's retainer with filing fee waived; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Freezing order continued until further order of the Court
  • Defendant's application to vary the freezing order is adjourned to the Nelson High Court on 24 May 2011