New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of dissipation

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2023

CLEAVER v BOND [2023] NZHC 3588

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3588
Court

High Court

Applicant demonstrated a good arguable case that the defendant holds the applicant's inherited funds on trust, identified the defendant's ANZ account as an asset over which an order can apply, and established a real risk of dissipation given the defendant's non-disclosure; on balance of overall justice the Court granted a without-notice freezing order, ordered urgent disclosure of bank statements, allowed substituted service and waived the undertaking as to damages due to applicant's legal aid status.
2 Jun 2023

GAO v DENG [2023] NZCA 200

Citation

[2023] NZCA 200
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal because the applicant had a good arguable case that the funds were held by the first respondent as trustee and the evidence (trust deed, account operation by third parties, trustee's absence overseas, and disclosed term deposit of approximately NZD 706,968) established a real risk that the funds could be dissipated or moved offshore; on balance of convenience a without‑notice freezing order preserving all funds in the ANZ accounts pending prompt proceedings is justified.
8 Dec 2022

HUA WU also known as DANNY WU v JINXING LIU [2022] NZHC 3311

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3311
Court

High Court

The application for a freezing order was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a good arguable case that the 2018 transactions were procured by blackmail or were sham, the evidence was incoherent and insufficiently corroborated (including inadmissible hearsay), and the applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of the Whenuapai property. Consequently, injunctive relief was not justified.
28 Mar 2022

LEGLER, KLAUI and LEGLER v FORMANNOIJ [2022] NZHC 586

Citation

[2022] NZHC 586
Court

High Court

Downs J's 18 October 2021 interim order did not restrain use of the $1,000,000 term deposit because that distribution had been implemented before proceedings and the injunctions should not be expansively construed; however, balancing the status quo and least irremediable prejudice the Court allowed the first defendant to withdraw $500,000 from one term deposit to meet legal costs pending appeal, and dismissed the plaintiffs' interlocutory application for further restraint.
21 May 2021

HARE v AITCHISON [2021] NZHC 1148

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1148
Court

High Court

Applicant established a good arguable case of a de facto relationship giving her priority to letters of administration, there are identifiable estate assets, and there is a real risk of dissipation if relief is not granted without notice; accordingly a freezing order was justified and granted subject to sealing, service, leave to apply to set aside, and a case management conference.
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).
13 Oct 2020

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v WRIGHT [2020] NZHC 2686

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2686
Court

High Court

Because the Court was satisfied on the material before it that there were reasonable grounds to believe the property was tainted or the product of unlawful gain, that the respondent had an interest in it, and that giving notice created a real risk of disposal or value alteration, a without-notice restraining order was justified and was made in terms of the draft filed.
22 Sept 2020

Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2020] NZHC 2470

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2470
Court

High Court

The plaintiff demonstrated a sufficient real risk of dissipation to justify continuation of freezing orders because significant parts of the plaintiff's evidence about the defendant's conduct in China were unchallenged, the defendant failed to disclose NZ assets in PRC enforcement proceedings, the Auckland apartment (the defendant's principal quantifiable NZ asset) had been sold and would be converted to liquid funds, and there remained opacity and uncertainty around Boen NZ's finances and the defendant's relationship with related NZ entities; accordingly interim freezing and ancillary disclo…
13 Feb 2020

LI v EJ HOLDINGS LTD [2020] NZHC 146

Citation

[2020] NZHC 146
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to establish a good arguable case on any pleaded cause of action because evidence did not support that (a) company or its directors received the invested funds or authorised the alleged representations by Mr Li, (b) applicant had proprietary interest in stock sold or that Heyday International unjustly benefited, and (c) there was a real risk of dissipation of assets; accordingly freezing order refused.
26 Jul 2019

SMITH MITCHELL LTD v BRADLEY [2019] NZHC 1791

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1791
Court

High Court

Given the evidence of systematic diversion of client funds, the presence of identifiable New Zealand assets, the inferred real risk of dissipation based on alleged prolonged dishonest conduct, and the provision of an undertaking as to damages, the balance of convenience favoured granting a without‑notice freezing order and substituted service to preserve assets pending further hearing.