The moving party, a respondent in the underlying application, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to vary a consent order that had approved a share purchase agreement, alleging newly discovered fraud by the responding party.
The moving party sought to have the share sale proceeds paid into court as security for claims in related actions, or alternatively, a Mareva injunction restraining the responding party from dealing with the proceeds.
The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 59.06(2) cannot be used to amend the terms of a contract approved by a consent order.
The court also denied the Mareva injunction, finding no evidence to support a reasonable inference of a real risk that the responding party would dissipate or remove the assets to avoid a judgment.
