Ali v Singh - [2025] NZHC 1660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1381

[2025] NZHC 1660

UNDER Rule 32 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of 2 Goh Place, Manurewa

BETWEEN

AMJAD ALI and SADAF SADAF

Applicants

AND

KULDEEP SINGH

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

E J Walton for applicants

Date of judgment:

19 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 June 2025 at 4.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
E J Walton, Barrister, Christchurch Legal Solutions, New Plymouth

ALI v SINGH [2025] NZHC 1660 [19 June 2025]

[1] As duty judge, I have Amjad Ali’s and Sadaf Sadaf’s 19 June 2025 without notice originating application for freezing and ancillary orders in respect of $200,000 held on Kuldeep Singh’s account by Westpac New Zealand Limited.

Background

[2] The applicants acquired Mr Singh’s residential property on 30 April 2025. They permitted him to remain in residence, pending his return to India. During his continued residence, Mr Singh damaged the property, including by crashing his car into the house and garage, structural repairs of which are provisionally indicated to cost $100,000–$150,000. The applicants apprehend their insurance may not respond, because of Mr Singh’s unadvised occupancy. They then would look to him for any loss, whether under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 or otherwise.

[3] In making arrangements for his return to India, immediately after release from hospital for the serious injuries he sustained in the crash, Mr Singh is said to have agreed to provide $200,000 to be held in trust by the applicants’ lawyers. However, Mr Singh needed to give notice to Westpac to access his larger funds held on term deposit, although the bank retains discretion to release them earlier. Even if he has given such notice or sought earlier release, he has not instructed Westpac to pay the
$200,000. Mr Singh’s return to India is imminent, although there is a suggestion he has been rehospitalised.

Law on freezing orders

[4] Freezing orders may be ordered if I am satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, there is a danger a prospective judgment in the applicants’ favour will be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the value of Mr Singh’s assets is alienated from them in some manner.1

[5] Freezing orders are “a valuable protective measure for those commencing civil proceedings”,2 for which applicants must show “a good arguable case on an accrued

1 High Court Rules 2016, r 32.5(4).
2 Hannay v Mount [2011] NZCA 530 at [20], referring to Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft MBH v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd (trading as Shell International Trading Co) [1990] 1 AC 295 (HL) at 317.

or prospective cause of action”.3 By ‘good arguable case’ is meant establishment of “a sufficiently plausible foundation” such that “the cause of action is at least tenable”:4

A good arguable case against the respondent is therefore established if the allegations in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ali v Singh

Details

AGLC: Ali v Singh [2025] NZHC 1660
Case: [2025] NZHC 1660
Decision Date: 19 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ali v Singh, heard by Jagose J in the High Court of New Zealand, involves an application by Amjad Ali and Sadaf Sadaf for freezing and ancillary orders against Kuldeep Singh. The applicants, who had purchased Mr Singh's residential property, sought to freeze $200,000 held by Westpac New Zealand on Mr Singh's account. They allege that Mr Singh damaged the property, including by crashing his car into the house and garage, and that he agreed to provide the $200,000 to cover the damages. However, Mr Singh has not yet instructed Westpac to release the funds. The applicants fear that their insurance may not cover the damage due to Mr Singh's unadvised occupancy, leaving them to potentially seek reimbursement from him. The legal issues before the court included whether a good arguable case existed for the applicants' prospective claims against Mr Singh and whether there was a danger of alienation of assets that might frustrate the prospective judgment.

The court found that the applicants had established a good arguable case based on the allegations of damage to the property and Mr Singh's agreement to provide funds. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, as freezing the funds seemed to have little impact on Mr Singh, while the applicants risked significant loss if the insurance did not cover the damage. The court noted that the applicants had provided the required undertaking not to use the frozen funds for purposes other than those permitted by the order. The court ordered that the freezing order would lapse if not called in the duty judge's list by 10.00 am on Thursday, 26 June 2025, and that any application to discharge or vary the order must be made on two working days' notice to the applicants.

Orders