| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 385B/04 |
| Determination date | 09 December 2004 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | T Drake ; C Patterson, C Meechan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Snaith and Anor v Stone and Associates Ltd |
| Other Parties | Smits |
| Summary | INJUNCTION - Reasons for orders made - Ex parte application for mareva injunction - Sought order restraining respondent from removing from New Zealand any assets including all funds from sale of respondent's assets to third party - Documents filed in contemporaneous District Court proceedings satisfied Authority that applicants had good arguable substantive case - Authority satisfied that there were assets within jurisdiction to which orders sought could attach - Merit in submission that respondent's actions in seeking to transfer assets and business were consistent with purpose of defeating whatever orders Authority made - Arguable that there was real risk that respondent would dissipate or dispose of assets - Consideration of overall justice required - Relevant interests of any third parties had not been put before Authority - Authority determined not to interfere with any sale in progress and declined to make orders as sought - Another form of injunctive order made |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Cases Cited | McAlister v Cayman Holdings Ltd unreported, A Dumbleton, 5 December 2002, AA 352/02;Neilson v Bestline Industries Ltd unreported, Colgan J, 5 February 1998, AEC 6/98;Stowers v Auto Point Ltd unreported, J Wilson, 29 July 2003, AA 232/03 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |