This action involved allegations of financial improprieties related to mortgage transactions.
Three motions were heard: a defendant's motion to challenge an ex parte Mareva order, the plaintiff's motion for a Norwich order, and a defendant's motion to determine the validity of her mortgage.
The court found the plaintiff's credibility severely compromised due to numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and deceptive conduct, including altering a diary entry and making false claims about forged signatures and language proficiency.
The Mareva order was vacated because the underlying facts had substantially changed, the defendant was suffering significant harm, and the balance of convenience favored the defendant.
The plaintiff's motion for a Norwich order was dismissed as moot.
The mortgage held by the defendant Wang was declared legal, valid, and binding, as the plaintiff failed to establish the defence of non est factum or unconscionability, and the unfulfilled conditions were for the lender's benefit.
The mortgagee was granted an order for possession and leave to issue a writ of possession.
