Powernet Limited v Arthur

Case

[2022] NZHC 939

5 May 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-425-11

[2022] NZHC 939

BETWEEN

POWERNET LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

JOSHUA GRANT ARTHUR

First Defendant

AND

APPLIED INTELLIGENCE LIMITED

Second Defendant

Appearances:

A D G Hitchcock for Plaintiff

W N Dawkins (not as counsel but to assist) First Defendant and Second Defendant

Judgment:

5 May 2022

(Determined on the papers)


[REDACTED] JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J


Parts of this judgment contain redactions

[1]                 This file has been referred to me as Duty Judge in relation to the on notice determination of the plaintiff’s freezing order application.

[2]                 The Court made a freezing order on a without notice basis on 8 March 2022.1 In that judgment, Dunningham J directed service of the application upon the defendants promptly.

[3]                 The application and other relevant documents were served on the first and second defendants on 12 March 2022.


1      Powernet Ltd v Arthur [2022] NZHC 395.

POWERNET LIMITED v ARTHUR [2022] NZHC 939 [5 May 2022]

[4]                 The first and second defendants have since provided and there has been filed in Court an admission by the first and second defendants of the plaintiffs’ claim in this proceeding.

Discussion

[5]                 Dunningham J identified in the 8 March judgment why the plaintiff has a good arguable case on its substantive claim, a conclusion that is now entirely vindicated by the admissions filed.

[6]                 I am satisfied the plaintiff is entitled to have the freezing order previously made (under r 32.2 High Court Rules) on a without notice basis made on a notice basis. The overall justice of the case and the balancing of interests clearly favours the plaintiff.

Orders

[7]I order:

(a)there is a freezing order to restrain the first and second defendants from removing the assets from New Zealand or from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of the assets, as set out in Annexure A hereto; and

(b)the costs and disbursements of the interlocutory application and of this order are to be costs in the cause.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

AWS Legal, Invercargill

Copy to:
Bill Dawkins Law, Invercargill

ANNEXURE A

Schedule of Asaeta


Eatlmated       Moet ege Value

3 Fred flkee%     Wahua &zW Tapanct                 Arthur

and Cassamdaz Loe

as dönt Tenants 37FeeBSmwü.       Joshue(üarü

Tapenrü              Ahhur

Cassamlre Lee Zofxab-Artl'xx• as loont Tenants

Northurr€›erIarxJ JosWa nt Gtreet TapanuJ     Arthix

Ccott M1Jan I4efson BMi

m Telants in Common in

OT3b4/52

TT  €B6

G4S,0OJ.0€t

Homes NZ

l    DN08GO2

,ao.a

I-!omes NZ

MA

I'tA

1968 Pontiac

1hevrolet SJiverado

2021 Honda CRV

Sport 7

6B-71 mode! year klok+en Ta-na




Unxmw

Finance


N/A



All bank accounts held in the name of Joshua Grant Arthur owned solely or jointly with any person.

All bank accounts held in the name of Applied Intelligence Limited.

Bank account number [REDACTED] as set out in the affidavit of David Goodyear Seath.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Powernet Limited v Arthur [2022] NZHC 1249
Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0

Powernet Limited v Arthur [2022] NZHC 395