22 Dec 2023
A stay of execution pending the Court of Appeal was granted because the balance of convenience justified preserving the status quo during the appeal, subject to specific conditions preventing the defendants from increasing secured debt over the relevant property interests to avoid prejudice to the plaintiff.
18 Oct 2023
Because there was an identifiable fund likely to be in dispute, credible evidential grounds to suspect breach of trustee duties and possible undue influence, urgency with imminent settlement and a short preservation period, the court properly exercised its discretion to grant a without‑notice preservation order for two months while preserving respondents' ability to apply to set aside.
21 Sept 2023
On the affidavits and material before the Court FCU demonstrated a good arguable case on at least one pleaded cause of action, identified assets with sufficient particularity, and established a real risk of dissipation supported by alleged fraudulent conduct and respondent non‑engagement; balancing the interests and given the offered undertaking as to damages, limited without‑notice freezing relief was justified, including restraint over the jointly owned leasehold property as against the co‑owner respondents but not as a personal order against the non‑defendant co‑owner.
31 Aug 2023
The Court was satisfied the statutory and equitable grounds for continuing and varying the interim freezing order were established (good arguable case, identifiable assets, real risk of dissipation, supported by the defendants' criminal conviction and void separation agreement), and therefore varied the interim freezing order to freeze $922,904.24 in specified assets pending effectiveness of a charging order, noting that the charging order will render the freezing order redundant once effective.
16 Aug 2023
The Court was satisfied Probis had a prima facie claim to approximately USD 38.4m, Mars Cap lacked independent control of funds (reliance on third‑party liquidity providers, one in liquidation and another suspended), the director failed to disclose information and there was a real risk of payments constituting voidable preferences; accordingly appointment of interim liquidators under s246 was necessary to preserve assets and protect creditors, and the proposed appointees were suitable.
11 Jul 2023
Because the application was urgent under r 7.53 and the evidence showed a serious question to be tried, a real risk of dissipation of sale proceeds, and that damages would be inadequate, the Court was entitled to grant an interim injunction restraining disbursement of sale proceeds except to repay the first mortgage and to require the applicant to commence substantive proceedings promptly.
15 Jun 2023
Interim appointment of the Official Assignee was justified because Delorme proved necessity and expediency under s246: the director's failure to comply with a s261 notice, subsequent transfer of subsidiary shares shortly after the notice, and steps to avoid service created a real risk of dissipation of assets; appointing the Official Assignee preserved the status quo, protected creditor interests and was proportionate and neutral.
8 Dec 2022
Because only the presumption from an unsatisfied statutory demand existed and there was no firm evidence that MKOD's assets were being dissipated or at imminent risk — and the director's prior unrelated conviction did not meet the required threshold — it was not necessary or expedient to appoint an interim liquidator without notice; the application was therefore declined and the plaintiffs must serve and advertise their liquidation proceedings in the usual way.
6 Dec 2022
The Court found MPL had a good arguable case on the breach of contract claim, the defendants possess identifiable assets (two Manurewa properties) or proceeds from them, and there was a real risk of dissipation given past conduct and limited financial disclosure; on balance of justice the limited freezing order (proceeds up to $450,000 to be held in solicitors' trust pending further order) was necessary and proportionate to preserve the applicant's prospects of recovery.
5 Aug 2022
The court granted an interim freezing order because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case, identified assets to which the order can attach, and established a real risk of dissipation given the immediate transfer of apartment titles to a related company and imminent sale; the order was tailored to specified assets and limited in duration and effect.