P

[2022] NZHC 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CIV-2022-416-3

[2022] NZHC 932

UNDER	The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010
UNDER	Part 32 of the High Court Rules 2016
IN THE MATTER OF	Proceedings commenced in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, at Parramatta under No.(P)PAC5537/2021)
APPLICANT	Ms P

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	S L Abdale for the Applicant
Judgment:	4 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors/Counsel

S L Abdale, Barrister, Hamilton

Ms P [2022] NZHC 932 [4 May 2022]

What happened?

[1]    The applicant in New South Wales, Australia, is in a relationship property dispute with her former partner, the respondent, who now resides in the Gisborne district in New Zealand.1 The applicant and respondent were together from 2009 to 2016 and then again from August 2017 to October 2019. The respondent has not taken steps in relation to the relationship property proceedings in the Family Court of Australia.

[2]    The applicant provides evidence that, without her knowledge or consent, in December 2021 the respondent sold the parties’ former family home and transferred the proceeds plus other funds, totalling AUD$752,573 to the bank account of her current partner in Gisborne. The applicant claims 20 per cent of the proceeds, some AUD$135,886.91 plus interest and costs.

[3]    On 11 April 2022, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia at Parramatta permitted copies of relevant documents from the proceeding to be provided to the High Court of New Zealand, in respect of the applicant’s intended application for interim relief.

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010

[4]    The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (the Act) provides for the New Zealand High Court to give interim relief in support of civil proceedings in Australian courts. Under s 32, the New Zealand court may give interim relief it considers appropriate and that it would have given interim relief in a similar proceeding in New Zealand.

[5]    The High Court may grant freezing orders if satisfied the applicant has a good arguable case for substantive relief, there are assets to which the order can apply and there is a real risk of their dissipation.2 The Court must weigh the overall interests of justice.

1      I have anonymised the identities of the parties in deference to s 121(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Aus).

2      Shaw v Narain [1992] 2 NZLR 544 (CA) at 548; High Court Rules 2016, r 32.5(4).

Should freezing orders be granted?

[6]    I consider there is a good, arguable case here, based on the evidence before me. The claim is capable of tenable argument and is supported by sufficient evidence. There are assets to which the order can apply. The removal of the proceeds and other funds from one jurisdiction to another, without notice, indicates there is a real risk of their dissipation. The applicant’s concern that the respondent may take further such action if the application were made on notice appears reasonable to me on the basis of the evidence. An undertaking as to damages has been provided.

[7]I grant the freezing order as sought, on the basis that:

(a)It expires on 4 August 2022 unless renewed on application by the applicant and on notice to the respondent.

(b)It may be varied by consent of the applicant and respondent.

(c)The respondent may apply to vary or discharge the order with three working days’ notice.

Palmer J