The moving defendant sought to set aside a previously granted Mareva injunction obtained without notice, alleging inadequate evidence, hearsay, and failure by the plaintiffs to make full and frank disclosure.
The court examined alleged deficiencies including the presentation of SMS message data, inaccuracies in affidavit evidence, and hearsay regarding customer orders.
While the court acknowledged certain imperfections and minor inaccuracies in the evidence, it concluded that the original motion judge had sufficient admissible evidence to justify the injunction.
The court held that minor imperfections or omissions in ex parte proceedings do not automatically invalidate relief where the overall evidentiary foundation remains adequate.
The Mareva order was therefore maintained, subject to a minor agreed amendment.
