The defendant brought a motion seeking dissolution of an ex parte Mareva injunction that prohibited dealings with several real estate properties.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant participated in fraud and conspiracy relating to real estate transactions and argued that there was a real risk the defendant would dissipate assets to avoid judgment.
The court reviewed evidence of multiple property sales, inconsistencies in the defendant’s affidavit evidence, and delays in cooperating with discovery.
Applying the test for Mareva relief, the court found the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation.
The court held that the criteria for maintaining the injunction were satisfied and dismissed the defendant’s motion.
