The defendants brought a motion to set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction restraining them from dealing with their assets in connection with allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant fraudulently induced the transfer of $750,000 USD to a numbered company controlled by his common-law partner and that the funds were used for personal expenses and property renovations.
The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud against the individual defendant and unjust enrichment against the other defendant, and held there was a real risk of asset dissipation.
The court rejected arguments that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion and declined to require the plaintiff to post security for its undertaking in damages.
The Mareva injunction was continued and the defendants’ motions were dismissed.
