ANATOLY MOGILIN v NAM GEUN JO [2013] NZHC 1857

ANATOLY MOGILIN v NAM GEUN JO [2013] NZHC 1857

An unless order forcing the defendant to apply for a limited purpose visa was premature; however the court required further specific disclosure by affidavit within five working days because prior orders produced only non‑informative responses and there is a real concern of asset shedding; fines and strike out were not warranted on the evidence presented.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 1857
Parties
First Plaintiff: Anatoly Mogilin; Second Plaintiff: Marfa (Masha) Mogilin; First Defendant: Nam Geun Jo; Second Defendant: Martina Jho
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (discovery/pre Trial) / Interim Judgment (further Discovery)
Outcome
Interim discovery orders granted; refusal to impose contempt fines or strike out; visa/unless order for attendance refused as premature; confirmation that in‑person evidence is standard but alternative methods are available subject to directions.
Legal Topics
Discovery Orders, Attendance of Witness and Mode of Giving Evidence, Asset Freezing and Shedding, Ownership and Location of Vessel, Sale of Property Documentation, Application for Contempt Fines
Civil Procedure Evidence Maritime Property Contempt Discovery Orders Attendance of Witness and Mode of Giving Evidence Asset Freezing and Shedding +3 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anatoly Mogilin

First Plaintiff

Marfa (Masha) Mogilin

Second Plaintiff

Nam Geun Jo

First Defendant

Martina Jho

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (discovery/pre Trial) / Interim Judgment (further Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant must be compelled to attend trial in person or via alternative means
  2. 2 Whether the defendants must provide full particulars and verification of ownership/location of the yacht Volante and documentation of any sale
  3. 3 Whether the defendants must produce full particulars and documentation of the sale of two properties and the whereabouts of the proceeds

Ratio Decidendi

An unless order forcing the defendant to apply for a limited purpose visa was premature; however the court required further specific disclosure by affidavit within five working days because prior orders produced only non‑informative responses and there is a real concern of asset shedding; fines and strike out were not warranted on the evidence presented.

Court Disposition

Interim discovery orders granted; refusal to impose contempt fines or strike out; visa/unless order for attendance refused as premature; confirmation that in‑person evidence is standard but alternative methods are available subject to directions.