MZ VENTURES LTD v SHAH [2023] NZHC 864

MZ VENTURES LTD v SHAH [2023] NZHC 864

On the balance of probabilities the applicants demonstrated that the first respondent had left the country, that the respondents had a case to answer for fraudulent misapplication of funds, and that service had been effected by email; accordingly the without‑notice application was revived and granted and service was treated as effected.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 864
Parties
First Applicant: MZ Ventures Ltd; Second Applicant: DTB Solutions Ltd; Third Applicant: Chantilly Estate Ltd; First Respondent: Mubashir Hussain Shah; Second Respondent: Jenhash Contracting and Consultants Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Freezing Order Application / Interim Application Without‑notice Application Revived; on the Papers
Outcome
Without‑notice application revived and granted; service deemed effected; freezing orders made (as sought in application filed 6 April 2023).
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Without Notice Application, Substituted Service, Service of Documents, Misapplication of Funds
Civil Injunctions Commercial Law Fraud Civil Procedure Freezing Order Without Notice Application Substituted Service +2 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MZ Ventures Ltd

First Applicant

DTB Solutions Ltd

Second Applicant

Chantilly Estate Ltd

Third Applicant

Mubashir Hussain Shah

First Respondent

Jenhash Contracting and Consultants Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freezing Order Application / Interim Application Without‑notice Application Revived; on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a without‑notice freezing order should be granted
  2. 2 Whether substituted service by email was effective
  3. 3 Whether respondents fraudulently misapplied funds

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the applicants demonstrated that the first respondent had left the country, that the respondents had a case to answer for fraudulent misapplication of funds, and that service had been effected by email; accordingly the without‑notice application was revived and granted and service was treated as effected.

Court Disposition

Without‑notice application revived and granted; service deemed effected; freezing orders made (as sought in application filed 6 April 2023).

Orders

  • Service was effected on the first and second respondents when the director of the first applicant emailed the required documents to the first and second respondents on 10 April 2023.
  • The application for orders filed on 6 April 2023 is granted.