5 Jun 2009
DE ALWIS AND ORS V CHEAN HC AK CIV 2007-404-005357
- Citation
- openlaw-874cb69a_81f8_48c2_9306_680c684c4d1c.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The asset preservation order was varied because under the applicable new Rules and existing common law the defendant is entitled to use frozen assets for reasonable living expenses; the plaintiffs had not established that the frozen funds were impressed with a trust traceable to the contested subscriptions, and the plaintiffs' substantive entitlement remained uncertain (Court of Appeal had raised issues about director appointment timing and estoppel), therefore permitting $1,205 per week was justified and would not defeat the purpose of the freezing order.