New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mareva injunction

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2022

STREET & COOK CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v CAMBRIDGE TERRACES LTD [2022] NZHC 2385

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2385
Court

High Court

A variation of the freezing order was appropriate because holding the sale proceeds of the apartments ($500,000) in a solicitor's trust account on an appropriate undertaking preserved the protective purpose of the freezing order against dissipation while permitting the sale to proceed; the applicant's contention that the freezing order should be used to compel immediate payment under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 was rejected in this context.
28 Oct 2020

BGT DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v HEWSON [2020] NZHC 2818

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2818
Court

High Court

Applicant demonstrated a tenable cause of action based on the Heads of Agreement and supporting affidavit evidence, showed a real risk of dissipation of identifiable proceeds (trustees moved overseas and no other real property located), and provided an undertaking as to damages; accordingly an interim freezing order prohibiting respondents from disposing of the proceeds up to the value of the applicant's claim was justified, while more intrusive disclosure or third‑party orders were deferred to on‑notice proceedings.
20 Sept 2018

FIRST NZ PROPERTIES LIMITED v BARNES [2018] NZHC 2474

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2474
Court

High Court

The court granted the without‑notice freezing order because the plaintiffs demonstrated a good arguable case, the balance of convenience justified preservation of assets, and notifying the defendant would risk dissipation; the order is interim and expires on 20 October 2018 unless extended.
3 Nov 2017

WALKER v FORBES.6 [2017] NZHC 2694

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2694
Court

High Court

Applications dismissed. The Court held established authority precludes discovery of unpleaded insurance information under r 8.19; r 1.2 does not expand discovery to private settlement negotiations; r 8.20 is discretionary and should not be exercised where the information relied on derives from without‑prejudice communications, the insurer is already aware and s 9 LRA protects the claimant, and the plaintiffs are not genuinely proceeding against the insurer but seek information for settlement/enforceability purposes; disclosure would improperly intrude into the defendant's financial position a…
19 May 2017

WORLDCLAIM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v SAYERS [2017] NZHC 1053

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1053
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case and provided sufficient evidence that the first defendant possessed relevant material and that there was a real risk of destruction of evidence and dissipation of assets; coupled with proposed safeguards (independent solicitors, undertakings, reporting and ability to apply to vary/discharge), the balance of justice warranted without-notice search orders, a freezing order and interim injunction to preserve evidence and assets pending trial.
4 Aug 2016

CENTRAL MOTOR GROUP LIMITED v ELMIGER [2016] NZHC 1793

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1793
Court

High Court

The court was satisfied plaintiffs demonstrated a good arguable case of misappropriation, that the defendant had assets in New Zealand (notably the Taupo property), and there was a real risk of dissipation because the property was on the market; accordingly a limited freezing order restraining sale or encumbrance of the specified property and an order for the defendant to file an affidavit of assets was justified, while further relief and non-party discovery were adjourned for review.
10 Mar 2016

Blundell Concrete Limited v Haronga [2016] NZHC 401

Citation

[2016] NZHC 401
Court

High Court

The judge was satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiffs had a good arguable case of misappropriation, that the defendant held assets in New Zealand in two bank accounts and there was a real risk of dissipation if notified; accordingly an ex parte freezing order and dispensing with prior service under r 32.2 was justified.
5 Feb 2016

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION & ORS v DOTCOM & ORS [2016] NZHC 88

Citation

[2016] NZHC 88
Court

High Court

The Commissioner of Police had standing as an interested party and was entitled to be heard. The court may vary a freezing order under r 32.8 by exercising a residual discretion focused on the interests of justice, but variation to permit use of frozen assets as security was refused because the proposed transaction posed an unacceptable risk to the frozen asset: CTSL and Mr Dotcom lacked means to repay, Mega Ltd's shares were unlikely saleable, the company was financially distressed with repeated dilutive rights issues, and the risk assessment could not be left solely to Mr Dotcom. The studio…
3 Jul 2015

AMERICHIP, INC v DEAN & ANOR [2015] NZHC 1534

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1534
Court

High Court

The Court continued the freezing orders because Americhip has a good arguable case based on documentary and testimonial evidence indicating employer/employee relationship and alleged fraud, identifiable assets exist (notably the Mairangi Bay property and bank accounts) and objective circumstances (defendants' departure from New Zealand, non‑compliance with disclosure, dissolved companies and unexplained asset shortfall) give rise to a real risk of dissipation; the orders are proportionate in the interests of justice though receivers were not warranted at this stage.
15 Aug 2013

GLOVER TRUST LTD and ORS v GLOVER TRUST CORPORATION and ANOR [2013] NZHC 2056 [14 August 2013]

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2056
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction to vary a freezing order after judgment in rare circumstances and, applying its discretion to prevent greater loss, it will permit a limited and conditional release of frozen funds to pay genuine mortgage arrears to avoid a mortgagee sale, while granting a stay of execution pending resolution of standing/joinder issues.