Where defendant did not oppose freezing order, except for an ancillary order concerning the making of an affidavit as to certain matters
Held freezing order granted
Where freezing order also sought against a non
Quick Take
1Where a freezing order is sought against a third party under r 37A.05(5)(a) on the basis that a sale of property was a sham, the applicant must establish a good arguable case that the prospective judgment debtor retains a beneficial interest in the property; evidence that the parties did not act in accordance with the material terms of the contract of sale, combined with unexplained and unusual features of the transaction, may suffice to establish that case.
2A freezing order against a third party should be confined to the specific asset over which the third party holds a power of disposition on behalf of the prospective judgment debtor, rather than extending to all of the third party's assets, where the identified danger relates only to that specific asset.
3Ancillary disclosure orders under r 37A.03 must be directed to making the freezing order effective and should not exceed what is necessary for that purpose; where a freezing order against a third party is confined to a specific property, ancillary disclosure concerning the third party's broader financial dealings may be refused as unnecessary.
