The defendant brought a motion to set aside a Mareva injunction that had been granted ex parte freezing her bank accounts.
The corporate plaintiffs alleged the defendant withdrew funds from their accounts without authorization after being given access to facilitate repayment of loans she had advanced to the companies.
The defendant argued the injunction should be vacated due to material non-disclosure, lack of a strong prima facie case, and absence of evidence of asset dissipation.
The court held that the plaintiffs had made adequate disclosure when obtaining the ex parte order and that, although direct evidence of dissipation was weak, the circumstances and strong prima facie evidence of fraud permitted an inference that assets might be dissipated.
The motion to vacate the Mareva injunction was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
