1 Aug 2023
On the balance of probabilities the Court was satisfied the unsigned document expressed the deceased's testamentary intentions based on the solicitor's contemporaneous evidence and the informed consent of affected family members, and therefore the document was declared a valid will under s14 Wills Act 2007.
12 Dec 2022
The respondent failed to demonstrate that the secured obligations had been performed or provide a valid ground under s 162 to discharge the financing statement; consequently the interim without‑notice order maintaining registration was made final and contractual indemnity costs were awarded where the respondent pursued removal without a legitimate basis and had been put on notice of costs.
11 Aug 2022
The judge was satisfied there was a real risk of dissipation if notice were given and, on the material filed, there were reasonable grounds to believe the identified assets were tainted property and the respondent had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to grant without-notice restraining and further orders placing the specified assets in the Official Assignee's custody to preserve them for potential forfeiture.
10 Nov 2021
Leave to appeal was declined because, although arguable errors were identified, the appeal was of only marginal significance to Green Way: the search yield had been secured and preserved with an independent solicitor and IT expert, discovery is being conducted under solicitors' obligations and court supervision, and the cost and likely delay of an appeal were not justified; accordingly leave under s56(3) was refused and costs awarded to the defendants.
3 Nov 2021
Given the applicant's evidence of the respondent's prior concealment of assets, the respondent's conviction and admission concerning the restrained cash, and the risk the respondent could sell or refinance the jointly owned property, the Court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the property was tainted and that without‑notice restraint was necessary; accordingly restraining orders under s 24 were granted for three months.
1 Oct 2021
The Court was satisfied the affidavits disclosed a proper basis for a without‑notice application and that it was seriously arguable the respondent was transferring assets to frustrate prospective claims; accordingly the Court granted interim ancillary disclosure orders requiring verified production of bank and transaction records identifying recipients, amounts and purposes of net proceeds of sale of 17 Taruna Place, Havelock North, within two working days, while leaving parties free to apply for further directions or to set aside or vary the orders.
23 Jun 2021
The judge was satisfied the circumstances justified dealing with the application without notice, accepted the applicant's undertaking, and granted the interim freezing order in the terms of the draft filed on 21 June 2021, subject to review on the specified date.
24 Dec 2020
The Judge concluded the affidavit evidence justified inferring the respondents had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and that there was a real risk the identified property would be disposed of if notice were given; therefore the statutory criteria for a without-notice restraining order under s22 (and restraint under ss24–25) were met and the order was made.
9 Jun 2020
There was a good arguable case that the defendant held specified ticket sale proceeds on trust and had admitted cashflow problems creating a real risk of dissipation; accordingly, it was necessary and proportionate to grant a without‑notice freezing order and ancillary disclosure orders to preserve the trust funds until the Court further orders, limited in duration to allow an interim review.
20 Feb 2020
There was a seriously arguable case that respondents could not validly trigger the buyout because cl 14.1 was subject to cl 17 (negotiation and mediation) which had not been exhausted; damages were inadequate and the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured preserving the applicants' shareholder position pending resolution, therefore interim without‑notice orders (draft orders 3,5,6 and 7) were justified.