3 total
The court granted a Mareva injunction after finding a strong prima facie case of fraud.
The Plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and ancillary relief, alleging a significant fraud where over $17,000,000 in investor funds were misappropriated from a litigation financing business and diverted to companies controlled by the Defendants to purchase real estate and other assets, resembling a Ponzi scheme.
The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of asset dissipation (evidenced by attempts to sell properties and the defendants' lack of forthrightness), and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs.
The court also ordered the net proceeds from the sale of a specific property to be held in trust and granted substituted service for two defendants.
Fraudulent land‑banking scheme leads to damages and punitive award against individual promoter.
The plaintiff brought an action arising from a land banking investment scheme that resulted in losses exceeding $250,000.
The defendants had been noted in default, and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial to determine liability and damages.
The court held that the pleaded facts established fraudulent misrepresentation, as the defendants knowingly promoted investments in land unlikely to receive development approval while promising substantial returns.
Judgment was granted jointly and severally against two individual defendants for the full value of the investments, and punitive damages were awarded against one defendant due to egregious conduct exploiting the plaintiff’s vulnerability and disability.
Claims for aggravated damages were dismissed for lack of evidence that psychological benefits were within the parties’ contemplation.
Appeal dismissed; defaulting purchaser denied relief from forfeiture of $35,000 deposit.
The appellant purchaser entered into an agreement to buy a townhouse but failed to close the transaction due to financial difficulties.
The vendor retained the $35,000 paid by the appellant as a forfeited deposit.
The appellant sued for the return of the funds, claiming relief from forfeiture, but the trial judge dismissed the action.
On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant did not act reasonably and was therefore not entitled to relief from forfeiture.
The appeal was dismissed, with a dissenting opinion arguing that the payments were not explicitly defined as a deposit in the main agreement.
