31 May 2022
The application was dismissed because the funds were legally owned by the plaintiff under prior court orders and the applicant was not an innocent third party but acted recklessly by accepting instructions despite knowledge of the defendant's debarment and without verifying the continuing force of the freezing order, so relief to retain the funds was denied.
22 Nov 2021
The Court balanced the plaintiff's potential entitlement (likely to be one half of the net proceeds) and the need to retain funds for costs and potential liabilities and concluded that releasing $150,000 of the frozen proceeds to the defendants would leave adequate security for the plaintiff's potential PRA claim and costs; accordingly the freezing order was varied to permit release of $150,000.
7 Sept 2020
No costs were awarded for the variation of the freezing order because the matter was moot when decided and costs should ordinarily be fixed contemporaneously; costs were awarded to MSM for the ancillary information application in the sum of $4,182.50 because MSM was essentially successful; costs were not awarded for the costs application because no special reason was shown to depart from the usual reluctance to award costs on costs applications.
12 Sept 2018
Variation granted because defendant demonstrated she had no other means to fund necessary expert evidence, she has an arguable case on the merits (capacity/undue influence) based on contemporaneous medical notes and lawyer observations, and the discretionary balance of justice favored limited release of $20,000 despite plaintiffs' proprietary claim to the frozen proceeds.
2 Jul 2018
The court accepted the parties' agreement that $75,500.80 of Trident's costs should be reimbursed from the trust fund and varied the freezing order to allow that payment; the court also held Mr Castillo liable to pay $16,257.50 of Trident's costs personally because his actions set the litigation in train, leaving an outstanding balance ($23,267.38) for which the parties may file further submissions.
29 Jul 2016
The application to vary the freezing order was declined because Central failed to satisfy the court that sale was necessary to complete discovery or to fund the discrete discovery work; available loan facilities and recent credit arrangements indicated funds could be drawn to meet required works and discovery, and permitting sale before Central completed discovery would risk irreparable prejudice to Miyamoto's claimed shareholding; Central must complete discovery and then may renew its application.
5 Feb 2016
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…
21 Dec 2015
The urgent application to vary the freezing order was dismissed because the court was not persuaded to permit the proposed use of the frozen asset as security and the corresponding proposals for replacement undertakings were not acceptable; consequently CTSL's request that the applicants give an extended undertaking as to damages was also dismissed.
29 Jan 2014
The Court allowed a limited variation of the freezing order because without a capped release for legal fees JEC could not meaningfully defend the summary judgment application; the Court authorised payment of an architect invoice and capped legal fees at $17,500 (excluding GST) paid monthly in arrears on invoice, but refused payments of wages to the bankrupt First Defendant and a director's allowance, on the basis that JEC was largely responsible for its impecuniosity and assets subject to the order must be conserved and properly accounted for.
30 Nov 2011
Because only a portion of the sale proceeds (approximately NZD125,000–NZD140,000) was arguably traceable to the plaintiffs and the proprietary claim was unlikely to extend to the entire frozen sum, the court found it appropriate to vary the freezing order and permit limited releases: monthly living expenses (NZD4,500), specified lump sums for debt servicing (NZD1,450) and relocation/furnishing (NZD7,000), and monthly legal costs on a Category 2B basis with 30% uplift, conditioned to protect the plaintiffs' ability to proceed to trial and subject to review.