The moving party sought to vacate an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing assets, arguing that the injunction had been obtained through material misrepresentations and failures of full and frank disclosure.
The court accepted that inaccuracies had been presented in the original application, including overstated assets, understated income, and failure to disclose proceeds from a home sale.
However, given ongoing concerns about the disappearance of significant funds and unresolved factual disputes, the court declined to set aside the injunction entirely.
Instead, the injunction was varied to permit the release of a portion of frozen funds reflecting assets the moving party credibly established were independently earned.
The court also dismissed the opposing party’s cross‑motion for additional funding and awarded costs to the moving party.
