New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asset dissipation

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2023

ZHENG v JUN YUE INVESTMENT LTD [2023] NZHC 1824

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1824
Court

High Court

No interim liquidator was appointed because jurisdiction was unclear (no liquidation application) and, even if available, liquidation would likely prejudice a viable company and the majority shareholder; however, an interim receiver was justified because the company's financial affairs are opaque, there is a substantial risk of asset dissipation identified by the Court, and the director's contradictory and materially inaccurate evidence (including undisclosed withdrawals of $1.698m) showed she could not be relied on to manage the company; accordingly Benjamin Francis was appointed as interim…
23 May 2023

RIVER OAKS MEWS LTD v MEURANT [2023] NZHC 1222

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1222
Court

High Court

The judge found River Oaks had established a good arguable case that Mr Meurant breached his duties and that surrounding facts (large payments to him and associates, auditor concerns, and a hurried discounted property sale) gave rise to a real danger of asset dissipation. The balance of convenience favoured protecting prospective recovery. Accordingly a limited freezing order without notice was justified, subject to conditions and an undertaking as to damages.
15 Mar 2023

BLACK and v McELHINNEY [2023] NZHC 521

Citation

[2023] NZHC 521
Court

High Court

Applicants' evidence raised serious concerns about potential dissipation and improper occupation of estate property; therefore the court granted narrowly tailored interim prohibitory orders to preserve the estate and directed expedited service and a telephone conference so the respondent can be heard before any further or more intrusive orders are made.
21 Dec 2022

MINES v LINDSAY [2022] NZHC 3613

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3613
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs established a serious question to be tried that the first and second defendants, as directors, acted in breach of their duties by pursuing self‑interested transactions and dissipating company assets; the balance of convenience favoured preserving company assets and preventing repetition of the conduct pending an on‑notice hearing, so prohibitory interim injunctions were granted on a Pickwick basis with directions for further on‑notice proceedings.
9 Nov 2022

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LTD v LEE [2022] NZHC 2938

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2938
Court

High Court

The applicant established a good arguable case under the guarantee, there is an identifiable asset (the respondent's residential property) and cogent evidence of asset disposal and probable absconding such that there is a real risk of dissipation; the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the respondent's equity pending determination of the substantive claim and ancillary disclosure from banks and the respondent was necessary to identify other assets; accordingly freezing and disclosure orders were justified and properly made without notice given the risk of prejudice to the applica…
31 Oct 2022

HUANG v CHEN [2022] NZHC 2821

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2821
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were warranted for steps directly related to the urgent freezing orders because defendants (principally Mr Chen and Yi Lu) deliberately dissipated Waihopai assets in the course of the Chen proceeding, thereby acting improperly in defending the proceeding; increased costs were granted only for preparation of briefs of evidence (two-thirds of actual time) due to late discovery of financial records, while other claims for increased or indemnity costs were disallowed or reduced; expert fees were allowed save for a quantified reduction for avoidable time; costs were apportioned 80%…
31 Aug 2022

SAFARI CONSTRUCTIONS (2005) LIMITED v CONCEPT BUILDERS QUEENSTOWN LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2387

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2387
Court

High Court

On a de novo on‑notice hearing the applicants met the onus: they demonstrated a good arguable case of fraudulent invoicing and related causes of action, identified assets within New Zealand, and established a real risk of dissipation by inference from the alleged sustained fraud and transfers to the director; the balance of convenience and overall justice therefore required continuation of the freezing orders.
4 May 2022

Ms P [2022] NZHC 932

Citation

[2022] NZHC 932
Court

High Court

Because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case on the relationship property claim, identified assets located in New Zealand (funds transferred to a Gisborne account), showed a real risk of dissipation and provided an undertaking as to damages, the High Court, under s 32 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 and relevant principles governing freezing orders, was justified in granting the interim freezing relief.
29 Sept 2021

ROEBUCK & ORS v LIDDLE BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2591

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2591
Court

High Court

The Court adjourned the without‑notice interim application to allow the respondent time to obtain instructions and voluntarily provide the pre‑transfer balance sheet; if disclosure is not provided or applicants still seek orders the Court will issue a prompt interim decision and leave is reserved for a defended hearing.
20 Nov 2019

SYLVIA PARK RESTHOME LIMITED v ZHANG [2019] NZHC 3030

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3030
Court

High Court

The freezing orders were extended because Sylvia Park established a good arguable case, there were identifiable assets, and there was a real risk of dissipation evidenced by the withdrawal and the respondent's purchase of a one‑way ticket; on balance the interests of justice require continuation until determination or agreement.