The Court granted freezing orders against non-party discretionary trust trustees under r 37A.05(5)(b), holding that the plaintiffs had a good arguable case that the prospective judgment debtor retained effective control over trust assets despite having transferred property, shares and directorships to his wife. Critical to the finding were the trust deed provisions enabling the first-named beneficiary to appoint a new trustee, the absence of any evidence that the wife had independent qualifications or experience in the relevant activities, and the demonstrated pattern of systematic asset alienation to defeat creditors. The Court confirmed that the applicable standard for third-party freezing orders is 'good arguable case' rather than the lower 'real case to be investigated' threshold.
The full text is available to signed-in members.