MRS J v MR J [2019] NZHC 1674

MRS J v MR J [2019] NZHC 1674

On the without‑notice application the applicant's affidavits supported an inference that the respondent was likely to make dispositions of relationship property to defeat a claim; the risk of overseas removal of gold and funds and the absence of prejudice from freezing (orders simply 'freeze' assets and do not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1674
Parties
Applicant: MRS J; Respondent: MR J
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Property (relationships) Act 1976 Application for Restraining Orders (s43) / Interim Without‑notice Application; Interim Restraining Orders Made
Outcome
Interim without‑notice restraining orders granted under s43 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in respect of gold bars and specified bank funds; without‑notice discovery refused; substituted service ordered; parties anonymised; matter listed before Duty Judge.
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders Under S43, Freezing Orders, Discovery on Without Notice Application, Substituted Service, Anonymity Orders
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Cross Border Assets Restraining Orders Under S43 Freezing Orders Discovery on Without Notice Application +2 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRS J

Applicant

MR J

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Property (relationships) Act 1976 Application for Restraining Orders (s43) / Interim Without‑notice Application; Interim Restraining Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dispositions of property are about to be made to defeat a claim under s43
  2. 2 Whether without‑notice interim restraint is justified
  3. 3 Whether discovery should be ordered without notice

Ratio Decidendi

On the without‑notice application the applicant's affidavits supported an inference that the respondent was likely to make dispositions of relationship property to defeat a claim; the risk of overseas removal of gold and funds and the absence of prejudice from freezing (orders simply 'freeze' assets and do not determine substantive rights) justified interim restraining orders under s43, while discovery without notice was refused and substituted service was ordered for the overseas respondent.

Court Disposition

Interim without‑notice restraining orders granted under s43 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in respect of gold bars and specified bank funds; without‑notice discovery refused; substituted service ordered; parties anonymised; matter listed before Duty Judge.

Orders

  • Interim restraining order under s43 freezing gold bars described in affidavit
  • Interim restraining order under s43 freezing funds in identified bank accounts