New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freezing orders (mareva)

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2023

GRACEWOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v ZHAN [2023] NZHC 3111

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3111
Court

High Court

The application to rescind the freezing and ancillary orders is dismissed because the subsequent evidence (UOB mortgagee sales) did not materially alter the pre‑existing position familiar to the Court at the August 2022 hearing; Gracewood's undertaking, despite deficiencies in disclosure, remains sufficient for present purposes and security can be ordered under r 32.6(5) if a real risk of loss emerges; ancillary disclosure orders are justified but should be pragmatically varied to require the respondent to use best efforts to provide valuations and bank information; and Freezing Order [7] sho…
21 Sept 2023

FIRST CREDIT UNION INCORPORATED v VAIANGINA [2023] NZHC 2639

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2639
Court

High Court

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.
9 Nov 2022

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v 22 O’SHANNESSEY LIMITED &ORS [2022] NZHC 2930

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2930
Court

High Court

The Court held the Assignee satisfied threshold requirements for third‑party freezing orders: there is a good arguable case that the 2016 transfers can be cancelled under s205, that O'Shannessey could be placed in liquidation and a liquidator could seek recovery under s348 PLA, that a process may be available to oblige Maram to disgorge assets, and that there is a real danger of dissipation; accordingly freezing and ancillary orders were continued but disclosure requiring third‑party bank account numbers was removed.
22 Sept 2020

Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2020] NZHC 2470

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2470
Court

High Court

The plaintiff demonstrated a sufficient real risk of dissipation to justify continuation of freezing orders because significant parts of the plaintiff's evidence about the defendant's conduct in China were unchallenged, the defendant failed to disclose NZ assets in PRC enforcement proceedings, the Auckland apartment (the defendant's principal quantifiable NZ asset) had been sold and would be converted to liquid funds, and there remained opacity and uncertainty around Boen NZ's finances and the defendant's relationship with related NZ entities; accordingly interim freezing and ancillary disclo…
21 Aug 2020

JONES v GOERTZEN [2020] NZHC 2136

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2136
Court

High Court

The receivers' reconstruction of the defendant's current account was sufficiently reliable and the defendant produced no defence to the quantum; therefore summary judgment was appropriate for recovery of the current account in the amount of $500,388.81 and the freezing orders should be continued to prevent dissipation of assets.
21 Jul 2020

TIRA v MCLAY [Reasons for decision made [2020] NZHC 2991

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2991
Court

High Court

The court found the plaintiff failed to disclose two critical matters in his without‑notice application — prior negotiations and an executed POSA suggesting agreement between the parties, and the plaintiff's unilateral seizure and use of most company assets — and that but for that non‑disclosure Moore J would likely not have made the freezing and related orders; accordingly the freezing orders were not renewed and lapsed on 21 July 2020. The executed search orders were not discharged because material had already been produced and was in court custody or held under undertakings.
21 Jun 2019

Mudajaya Corporation Berhad v Chua [2019] NZHC 1436

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1436
Court

High Court

The respondents' application to rescind the freezing orders succeeds because Mudajaya failed to establish a tenable argument that the Malaysian default judgment would be registered and survive setting aside under s6(1)(c) given there is no evidence of actual notice of the Malaysian proceedings to the defendants; alleged non‑disclosures were not egregious and, although a real risk of dissipation existed, it did not overcome the statutory requirement for actual notice to sustain registration and thus the extraordinary freezing relief could not be continued.
29 Aug 2014

DOTCOM V TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLP, WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC CA451/2014 [2014] NZCA 426

Citation

[2014] NZCA 426
Court

Court of Appeal

The court dismissed the stay application because the appellant failed to demonstrate specific prejudice sufficient to outweigh the respondents' interest in disclosure to prevent dissipation of assets; ancillary disclosure orders are integral to freezing order jurisdiction and may be subject to confidentiality protections, so the balance of convenience favoured refusing the stay.
27 Feb 2014

DAILY FREIGHT (1994) LTD v MOSESE [2014] NZHC 316

Citation

[2014] NZHC 316
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction to vary freezing orders after judgment, but given the entry of substantial summary judgment against the first defendant that exceeds the value of frozen assets, the first defendant's incomplete disclosure and receipt of undisclosed benefits, and the plaintiff's agreement to release funds to meet the Property Law Act notice, the application to vary the freezing orders is dismissed except that funds of $14,871.41 may be released from the BT Westpac Retirement Plan to satisfy the Property Law Act notice (to be paid to plaintiff's solicitors on undertaking to pay Westpa…