The plaintiffs sought to preserve assets allegedly traceable to funds stolen by a former controller and bookkeeper.
After disclosure and a Mareva injunction, the defendants asserted that they lacked sufficient funds to pay expenses and legal counsel.
Applying the four-part test for variation of freezing orders, the court held that the defendants failed to provide reliable financial evidence, failed to establish other assets were unavailable, and failed to show the frozen assets were from a non-proprietary source.
The motion was dismissed, with written costs submissions invited.
