New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mareva injunction principles

Legal area

Court

18 Apr 2018

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v H CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LIMITED (formerly HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED) [2018] NZHC 620

Citation

[2018] NZHC 620
Court

High Court

The ancillary disclosure application was dismissed because, although the applicant conceded a good arguable case for the purposes of the application, it failed to establish a real danger that Group Ltd's assets would be disposed of or diminished other than in the ordinary course of business; the respondents provided uncontested sworn evidence of the sale proceeds and their disposition, no reliable inference of dissipation or intent to defeat creditors could be drawn, and the disclosure sought was overly intrusive and unjustified at this stage.
9 Apr 2018

KUYT v KUYT [2018] NZHC 619

Citation

[2018] NZHC 619
Court

High Court

The Court granted the without‑notice freezing order because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case in the substantive relationship property proceedings, the New Zealand assets were identifiable, there was a real risk of dissipation (supported by evidence of the respondent's conduct), a sufficient nexus to New Zealand existed and the applicant provided the required undertaking as to damages; the order was made subject to minor amendments (expiry date and explicit undertaking paragraph).
17 Jun 2011

HANNAY V MOUNT COA CA855/2010

Citation

COA CA855/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

On the evidence before the Court there was a sufficient risk that respondents' assets might be removed or dissipated and, by consent of the parties, a freezing order limited to $350,000 in the named ASB account with specified exceptions and safeguards was appropriate and should be issued on appeal.
3 Feb 2011

CHEN V JACK'S VENTURES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-000456

Citation

openlaw-296b4ff8_3eb7_49c1_a1f7_0e3676950ef4.pdf
Court

High Court

The freezing order was granted because the applicants established a good arguable case, demonstrated that respondents had assets within New Zealand, showed a real risk of dissipation, and made full and frank disclosure and an undertaking as to damages; on that basis the court imposed a freezing order with ancillary discovery and a short temporary restraint on leaving New Zealand including surrender of passports, to expire or be continued on 3 March 2011.

New Zealand Case Law

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v H CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LIMITED (formerly HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED) [2018] NZHC 620

KUYT v KUYT [2018] NZHC 619

HANNAY V MOUNT COA CA855/2010

CHEN V JACK'S VENTURES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-000456