6 Jan 2021
LI AND OTHERS v YEUNG AND OTHERS [2021] NZHC 2
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 2
- Court
- High Court
Although plaintiffs demonstrated a good arguable case and that defendants owned assets to which orders could apply, the freezing orders were not continued because plaintiffs failed to satisfy the decisive requirement of a real risk of dissipation. The evidence showed prolonged disputes, prior investigations and recovery attempts without any demonstrated dissipation, many plaintiffs had not given undertakings as to damages, and the orders were disproportionate to particular claimed amounts (eg claim circa $40,000 vs frozen property > $2,000,000).