The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing the defendants' assets based on allegations of unpaid loans and fraudulent conveyance of proceeds from the sale of a house.
On the motion to continue the injunction, the plaintiffs sought to introduce new evidence obtained through the ex parte order.
The court refused to admit the new evidence, holding that a motion to continue is a hearing de novo where the responding party can test the original record.
The court found the original record insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case or a serious risk of dissipation against the defendant daughters, and terminated the injunction against them.
