The Court refused to discharge worldwide freezing orders on the basis that amendments to the plaintiff's statement of claim constituted a material change of circumstances, holding that the underlying factual substratum remained largely the same and a good arguable case was still established. The Court permitted controlled release of funds held in court to pay the defendants' reasonable legal costs (up to approximately $505,000) and to purchase a residential property for the first defendant (the Ivanhoe Property), subject to appropriate safeguards including that the property be held unencumbered and remain subject to the freezing orders, but refused a prospective order permitting release of funds for unspecified future property purchases. The Court observed in obiter that where disclosing parties themselves rely on their disclosure affidavits to support a variation application, the usual caution against granting leave to cross-examine on disclosure affidavits may carry less weight, and it was 'hard to see why leave to cross-examine would have been refused if sought' in those circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members.