New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asset disclosure

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2018

JIAN JUN QU v JUN ZENG [2018] NZHC 1355

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1355
Court

High Court

The Court found the first defendant Jun Zeng and the second defendant J & H Development Ltd intentionally breached the freezing and ancillary orders by failing to file required asset affidavits, using a mother's account to hide and dispose of frozen funds, transferring frozen assets to third parties (including a former girlfriend and to China via a foreign exchange account), and pawning a watch; these acts amounted to contempt. The BMW abandonment was not a disposition and furniture advertising alone was not proven as disposal. The appropriate penalty was community work (not imprisonment) and…
7 Oct 2015

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2015] NZHC 2455

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2455
Court

High Court

The stay of judgment was dismissed; the application to require the defendant to attend for examination was adjourned part‑heard to allow the defendant a fair opportunity to file a further affidavit addressing the Court's concerns about control over foundation assets and previous evidence before any order to attend for examination is made.
3 Apr 2014

THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD INC v CHEN [2014] NZHC 665

Citation

[2014] NZHC 665
Court

High Court

The defendant had not fully complied with the ancillary disclosure order and the disclosures made did not dispel the risk of dissipation; accordingly the Court extended the freezing order for a limited period to permit full compliance and a one-hour return hearing to determine whether continuation beyond 16 April 2014 is justified.
15 Feb 2012

SHEAT V BOULTON HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-002435

Citation

openlaw-2df53292_6e27_4576_8537_d36c7260417d.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted a freezing order because the plaintiffs disclosed a good arguable case on the summary judgment application, assets in New Zealand were identified, and there was sufficient evidence of dissipation; the Court limited the freezing order to permit sale of specified farm equipment with court approval and required further disclosure by the defendant by 24 February 2012.
19 Jul 2007

FRESHA VALLEY V HARJIT HC AK CIV.2007-404-2852

Citation

openlaw-44322773_7079_481a_8e89_8cc4a5b5c0e3.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the unmet statutory demand and risk of dissipation of sale proceeds and the imminent departure, the court ordered urgent preservation measures: Mr Singh must deposit passport(s) with his solicitor by 9pm (or alternative arrangements), must comply fully with existing disclosure orders, freezing orders against the bank and third party remain in effect, and the matter was adjourned for further hearing with warnings of possible arrest or contempt for non‑compliance.
23 Mar 2006

MORTGAGE INSURANCE COVER LTD V MAUTAMA HC AK CIV-2006-404-1514

Citation

openlaw-7f195023_273a_484a_8f41_b9497fe0897f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found MIC had an arguable case and proved the statutory criteria under r 567 because the loan was in default, sale proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the debt, co-debtors had left New Zealand and the defendant was likely to leave; accordingly a pre-judgment charging order and an order requiring disclosure of assets were justified and granted.

New Zealand Case Law

JIAN JUN QU v JUN ZENG [2018] NZHC 1355

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2015] NZHC 2455

THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD INC v CHEN [2014] NZHC 665

SHEAT V BOULTON HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-002435

FRESHA VALLEY V HARJIT HC AK CIV.2007-404-2852

MORTGAGE INSURANCE COVER LTD V MAUTAMA HC AK CIV-2006-404-1514