DEVOY & ORS V GOLDEX INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-001313

DEVOY & ORS V GOLDEX INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-001313

The Court found that the newly produced documentary and email evidence (power of attorney, account opening form, emails and contacts) established a good arguable case that Demin had authorised Damit to act for him, that Velocity held funds of approximately NZ$430,000, and that there was a real risk of dissipation;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-2cfa6b8b_1d03_45bc_bb72_550666b2b25f.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Eli Devoy; Second Plaintiff: Akiko Ito; Third Plaintiff: Alirezi Norouzy; Fourth Plaintiff: Dana Omidvar; Fifth Plaintiff: Hassan Arefi; Sixth Plaintiff: Sachito Shiozawa; Seventh Plaintiff: Zohreh Azimi; First Defendant: Goldex International Services Limited; Second Defendant: Haji Abd Rahman Awg Hajidamit; Third Defendant: Demin Sergey Vladimirovich
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil: Misrepresentation/investment Claim / Interim Freezing Order Application Determined (renewed Without‑notice Application Granted)
Outcome
Freezing order granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Misrepresentation, Assets Preservation, Service Abroad, Undertaking as to Damages
Equity Civil Procedure Contract Tort Freezing Order Misrepresentation Assets Preservation Service Abroad +1 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eli Devoy

First Plaintiff

Akiko Ito

Second Plaintiff

Alirezi Norouzy

Third Plaintiff

Dana Omidvar

Fourth Plaintiff

Hassan Arefi

Fifth Plaintiff

Sachito Shiozawa

Sixth Plaintiff

Zohreh Azimi

Seventh Plaintiff

Goldex International Services Limited

First Defendant

Haji Abd Rahman Awg Hajidamit

Second Defendant

Demin Sergey Vladimirovich

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Misrepresentation/investment Claim / Interim Freezing Order Application Determined (renewed Without‑notice Application Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a good arguable case against the third defendant
  2. 2 Whether assets exist within the court's reach and are at risk of dissipation
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages suffices to justify a without‑notice freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the newly produced documentary and email evidence (power of attorney, account opening form, emails and contacts) established a good arguable case that Demin had authorised Damit to act for him, that Velocity held funds of approximately NZ$430,000, and that there was a real risk of dissipation; on that basis and having received an undertaking as to damages the Court granted the freezing order sought.

Court Disposition

Freezing order granted

Orders

  • Freezing order in the terms sought at paragraph 1 of the application dated 31 January 2013 restraining disposition of assets held for Demin Sergey Vladimirovich
  • Plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages accepted