27 Aug 2020
JOHNSTON v JOHNSTON [2020] NZHC 2197
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 2197
- Court
- High Court
Given the unexplained change in evidence as to ownership, the trustees' silence on purpose of trust domicile change, apparent breaches or risk of breach of Texas orders, and the high mobility and convertibility of the gold bars, the court could properly infer a real risk of imminent disposition that would defeat the applicant's rights and therefore Downs J's s 43 restraint should stand; the third and fourth defendants' rescission application failed under r 7.49.