Tamara Watson

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction against his brothers and their jointly owned corporations amidst a family business dispute.

On the return motion, the defendants argued the injunction should be set aside due to the plaintiff's failure to provide full and frank disclosure of material facts, including his involvement in prior litigation and his control over a corporate mortgage.

The court agreed that the plaintiff breached his duty of full and frank disclosure and discharged the Mareva injunction over the defendants' personal assets.

However, the court exercised its discretion to grant an alternate interim injunction securing specific corporate cash accounts and real properties pending trial.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against his brothers and their jointly owned corporate entities.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dissipating assets, selling properties without his knowledge or consent, and transferring funds to avoid sharing them equally as previously agreed.

The court found that the motion should proceed ex parte due to the risk of further asset dissipation if notice were given.

Applying the test for a Mareva injunction, the court found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, a risk of asset removal, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted a temporary Mareva injunction freezing the defendants' assets.