Americhip, Inc v Dean

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004247 [2015] NZHC 1534

BETWEEN

AMERICHIP, INC

Plaintiff

AND

JASON CHARLES DEAN First Defendant

JUAN CHEN Second Defendant

Hearing: 12 June 2015

Appearances:

David Goddard QC and Liesle Theron for the Plaintiff
David Jones QC for the Defendants

Judgment:

3 July 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 July 2015 at 11:00am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Date:

AMERICHIP, INC v DEAN & ANOR [2015] NZHC 1534 [3 July 2015]

Contents

Paragraph

Number

Introduction ..............................................................................................................[1] The applications .......................................................................................................[5] Factual background .................................................................................................[6] Procedural background .........................................................................................[16] Freezing orders .......................................................................................................[28] Was there a failure to disclose material facts? ....................................................[35] Lack of full disclosure ..........................................................................................[36] Plaintiff ’s submissions..........................................................................................[38] Decision................................................................................................................[40] Does Americhip have a good arguable case? .......................................................[46] Defendants’ submissions ......................................................................................[47] Plaintiff ’s submissions..........................................................................................[51] Decision................................................................................................................[62]

Is there a risk of dissipation? ................................................................................[64] Defendants’ submissions ......................................................................................[65] Plaintiff ’s submissions..........................................................................................[66] Decision................................................................................................................[71] What are the interests of justice?..........................................................................[88] Defendants’ submissions ......................................................................................[89] Decision................................................................................................................[94] Conclusion............................................................................................................[98] Disclosure orders ....................................................................................................[99] Defendants’ submissions ....................................................................................[101] Plaintiff ’s submissions........................................................................................[102] Decision..............................................................................................................[103] Appointment of receivers ....................................................................................[109] Mairangi Bay ..................................................................................................... [113] Bank accounts .................................................................................................... [119] Timetabling orders ...............................................................................................[123] Result .....................................................................................................................[128] Costs ......................................................................................................................[135]

Introduction

[1]      The  plaintiff,  Americhip,  Inc  (“Americhip”)  claims  that  the  defendants, Mr Jason  Dean  and  Ms  Zita  Chan1   have  defrauded  it  of  approximately  US$10 million.   Americhip says they stole these funds using a variety of skimming techniques, but primarily through an elaborate fraudulent scheme involving the submission of false or inflated invoices for manufacturing work done for Americhip by various companies in China.

[2]      The proceedings against Mr Dean were filed on 18 September 2013.   The fourth amended statement of claim2  contains six causes of action alleging deceit, breach of fiduciary duty (by Mr Dean), breach of fiduciary duty (by Ms Chan), constructive trusts over the proceeds of fraud, knowing receipt (by Ms Chan) and dishonest accessory liability (against Ms Chan).

[3]      On 24 April 2015 Americhip applied for and was granted various ex parte orders freezing the first defendant’s assets, requiring the disclosure of assets and joining Ms Chan as the second defendant.  An application for orders appointing a receiver was adjourned.

[4]      On the same day Americhip obtained freezing orders in the form of a Mareva injunction in Hong Kong.  The banks in New Zealand and Hong Kong were served on 24 April 2015 after which Mr Dean and Ms Chan were notified.

The applications

[5]      Americhip have now brought applications seeking the following:

(a)       an  order  continuing  the  freezing  orders  made  on  24  April  2015 restraining Mr Dean and Ms Chan from dissipating their assets;

(b)orders requiring Mr Dean and Ms Chan to fully comply with the disclosure orders made on 24 April 2015 by disclosing all deposits,

1      Also known as Juan Chan.

2      Dated 24 April 2015.

transfers or withdrawals  of funds into, between  or from  the bank accounts affected by the freezing…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Americhip, Inc v Dean and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] NZHC 1534
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Americhip, Inc suing Mr Dean and Ms Chan for fraud amounting to approximately US$10 million. The legal issues in this case include the validity of the freezing orders, the requirement of full disclosure, the risk of dissipation of assets, and the interests of justice. The court found that Americhip has a good arguable case and that there is a real risk of dissipation of assets. The court also determined that the freezing and ancillary orders were not oppressive and were in the interests of justice. The court granted the disclosure orders and denied the appointment of receivers. The court also set a case management conference to expedite the proceedings. The final orders included the continuation of the freezing orders, disclosure orders, and an order for HSBC and ASB to disclose all bank account statements and information relating to the defendants. The court reserved leave for the parties to apply for further orders if circumstances change.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.