A. Ferguson

The Plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to continue a Mareva injunction, obtain an Anton Piller order, and secure ancillary relief against the Defendants, who are alleged to have engaged in a significant fraud involving over US$27 million.

The Defendants had failed to comply with previous court orders for disclosure of assets and funds.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of evidence destruction or dissipation.

Consequently, the court granted the Anton Piller order for search and preservation of documents and electronic evidence at the Defendants' property, continued the Mareva injunction, and ordered various ancillary relief, including registering the injunction on property title, passport surrender for one defendant, and further financial disclosure.

The plaintiff commenced a main action to recover monies from the defendant, a former romantic partner.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced a second action alleging the defendant fraudulently conveyed funds to her counsel.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the second action, arguing it was res judicata, an abuse of process, or should be dismissed because another proceeding was pending.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim was not res judicata as no final order had been made, and it was not an abuse of process.

However, to prevent the risk of double recovery, the court ordered the fraudulent conveyance action stayed pending the outcome of the main action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence due to his failure to pay a $100,000 costs award from a previous unsuccessful motion and his ongoing non-compliance with court orders, including a Mareva injunction.

The defendant argued impecuniosity and invoked protections against self-incrimination to justify his refusal to answer questions about his finances.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding he failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure and improperly used self-incrimination protections to avoid answering proper questions.

The court granted the motion and struck the statement of defence with prejudice.

The plaintiffs in four related fraud actions brought motions seeking various procedural relief against the defendant, an undischarged bankrupt, including validation of service, authorization for future email service, and the fixing of a timetable.

The court dispensed with mandatory mediation on consent but declined to issue a blanket order for email service or to fix a timetable, finding such relief premature.

Service of the statements of claim on the defendant was validated effective the date of the motion hearing.

Relief regarding a co-defendant was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of attempted service.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the foreign corporate plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs conceded entitlement to security for costs, leaving only the quantum in dispute.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the merits of the claim, and the applicable tariff rates, ultimately ordering the plaintiffs to post $33,000 as security for costs up to and including mediation.