The defendant moved to set aside a previously granted Mareva injunction that had frozen the proceeds from the sale of his home in a civil action arising from an alleged assault.
The plaintiffs had obtained the injunction ex parte based on concerns that the defendant would dissipate assets and frustrate enforcement of any damages award.
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant was removing assets from the jurisdiction or dissipating them outside the ordinary course of living.
Evidence showed the defendant had listed his home for sale because criminal bail conditions prevented him from living there and that he intended to purchase another residence.
Given the extraordinary nature of Mareva relief, the court concluded that continuation of the injunction was not justified and set it aside.
