17 Aug 2018
FUATI & OR v PENG & ORS [2018] NZHC 2134
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 2134
- Court
- High Court
The applicants demonstrated a good arguable case, assets within jurisdiction and a real risk of dissipation; accordingly the freezing orders were continued. Ancillary disclosure orders remain largely necessary for policing the freezing order but must be proportionate; specified overly broad disclosure requirements (orders 5.1(d), (f), (g)) were discharged. An order compelling the respondent to answer interrogatories was inappropriate at that stage and dismissed.
- Freezing order (mareva)
- Ancillary disclosure
- Variation/discharge of interlocutory orders
- Interrogatories
- Self‑incrimination (evidence act s63)