15 Jan 2016
The Court granted the interim ex parte order because the caveat would otherwise lapse imminently and the applicant had taken reasonable steps to notify the respondent; preserving the caveat pending further orders was necessary and appropriate, with costs reserved and leave to seek discharge on seven days' notice.
10 Aug 2012
Given the evidence available at the time (loss of internet access to bank accounts) the ex parte freezing application was justified; justice required awarding costs on a 2B basis for the attendances in applying for and obtaining the freezing order and the filing fees, while the plaintiff must bear today's hearing fee.
6 Oct 2010
The caveat was removed because the application was uncontested and the statutory test was satisfied; despite the respondent's personal circumstances and reasonable concerns, the matter was finely balanced and the conventional rule that the successful party is entitled to costs applied, resulting in an award of costs and disbursements of $2,948.10 on a 2B basis to the applicant.
26 Mar 2010
The court was satisfied there was a substantial arguable debt, inadequate realisable security, and credible evidence the defendant intended to move assets to Australia; accordingly an ex parte freezing order was necessary to prevent dissipation and preserve the plaintiff's position, with leave to apply limited to three days.
16 Dec 2008
Although ex parte applications without the counsel's certificate do not comply with Rule 240, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 5 to treat the failure as an irregularity and to cure it, because the applications were routine, non‑complex, and the defect was understandable in light of prior practice; accordingly the orders sought approving liquidators' remuneration were made, subject to a warning that future deliberate non‑compliance may not be excused.
22 Sept 2008
Because pressing circumstances justified ex parte consideration and the applicants satisfied the threshold for appointing Ms Fatapaito under s 280, the Court made an order appointing her; the Court declined to appoint Mr Blanchett because the considerations relevant to an appointment under s 280 did not support his appointment despite there being no concern about his competence on standing.
31 Jan 2006
The sealed substituted service order was properly obtained and there was no 'very special reason' or misleading of the Court that would justify recall under r.542(3) or the Court's inherent jurisdiction; accordingly the application to recall is dismissed and the substituted service order stands.
8 Jul 2004
The Court dismissed the appeal because the High Court Judge's direction to serve and list the mareva injunction application was within the bounds of sound judicial discretion: the proposed restraint was overbroad, there were unresolved issues as to parties and third parties, the assets at risk were limited, practical difficulties existed in framing suitable orders, and the High Court was not plainly wrong.