Dhieux v Mancel - [2025] NZHC 1639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1323

[2025] NZHC 1639

BETWEEN
FRANÇOISE CLOTILDE DHIEUX

Applicant

AND

EMERIC XAVIER MANCEL and MING MANCEL

Respondents

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A W Johnson and K R Narayan for applicant

Date of judgment:

18 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 June 2025 at 3.45pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Martelli McKegg, Auckland

DHIEUX v MANCEL [2025] NZHC 1639 [18 June 2025]

[1] As duty judge, I have Françoise Dhieux’s 17 June 2025 without notice originating application for a freezing order in respect of New Zealand property (real estate, bank accounts and shares) in the names of either or both her brother and his wife, respectively Emeric and Ming Mancel.

Background

[2] Ms Dhieux’s and Mr Mancel’s mother, Jacqueline Mancel, died on 25 May 2022. I offer the Court’s condolence to her survivors.

[3] Ms Dhieux is resident in New Caledonia, as was the mother; Mr Mancel and his immediate family are resident in the Republic of Ireland. The mother inherited a substantial estate from her husband (the children’s father) on his death in 2001.

[4] In New Caledonian proceedings, Ms Dhieux alleges her brother acquired the New Zealand property using funds transferred to the Mancels from the mother’s account since 1994. She says those transfers substantially depleted the mother’s assets and left little in her estate on her death, meaning her inheritance entitlement is unmet.

Law on freezing orders

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

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

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.
3      High Court Rules, r 32.5(1)(b).
4      Hannay v Mount, above n 2, at [21], citing Wing Hung Printing Co Ltd v Saito Offshore Pty Ltd [2011] 1 NZLR 754 (CA) at [41] and referring to Kuwait Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd (No 2) [1989] 2 NZLR 50 (CA) at 55, and [22].

A good arguable case against the respondent is therefore established if the allegations in the proposed claim are capable of tenable argument and are supported by sufficient evidence, bearing in mind the early stage at which 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 Dhieux v Mancel

Details

AGLC: Dhieux v Mancel [2025] NZHC 1639
Case: [2025] NZHC 1639
Decision Date: 18 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Judge Jagose heard Françoise Dhieux’s application for a freezing order against her brother Emeric Mancel and his wife Ming Mancel. The applicants reside in New Caledonia and the respondents reside in the Republic of Ireland. The mother of the parties, Jacqueline Mancel, recently passed away. Dhieux alleges that Emeric used funds transferred from their mother's account since 1994 to acquire New Zealand property, which substantially depleted their mother's assets and left little in her estate upon her death.

The court was required to determine whether Dhieux had established a good arguable case for a cause of action against the Mancels, and whether there was a danger of the prospective judgment being unsatisfied due to asset alienation. The court also needed to consider the balance of convenience between the parties. Dhieux must show that her allegations are capable of tenable argument and are supported by sufficient evidence. The court found that Dhieux’s allegations were plausible and supported by evidence, and that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The court ordered a freezing order on the Mancels' assets for a limited period, with the ability to discharge or vary the order on notice. The order was to expire on 26 June 2025, and any application to discharge or vary the order was to be made on two working days' notice to Dhieux.

Orders