The Supreme Court has turned down an application for an injunction over the assets of a tourism business in Vava’u.
Leisa Marie Francis applied for an injunction against her former partner Lolesio Susitiano Lui.
The parties had a whale watching and sports fishing business at Vava’u. In July 2017 they separated and in October 2017 the plaintiff returned to Australia with their children.
In his report on the case Lord Chief Justice Paulsen said Francis alleged she had a verbal partnership agreement with Lui to operate the whale watching and sports fishing business and that she paid for all the major assets of the business including four boats, a trailer and fishing gear.
She further alleged that the partnership agreement was terminated by the defendant and that she was entitled to the return of her contributions to the partnership namely the boats, trailer and fishing gear. She also claimed damages for the set up costs of the business and a substantial sum she said she spent to renovate a house.
Francis asked for an order prohibiting Lui from disposing or otherwise dealing with the partnership assets (the boats, trailer etc) and that he be required to keep them safe and fully insured pending further order of the Court.
She also asked that the Police be required to regularly inspect and report on the assets and that her former partner be required to provide reports on the business to an accountant nominated by the plaintiff.
The judge said Francis had failed to make out the grounds for issuing an injunction.
“I am prepared to accept for present purposes that the plaintiff has established a substantive claim and that there are assets in the jurisdiction to which orders can apply,” he said.
“However, there is a lack of evidence of any real or substantial risk that the defendant may dissipate those assets and the indications are that he intends to continue to retain the assets to operate the business.
“ The plaintiffs affidavit is extremely brief and does not contain the sort of detail that one would expect to be provided detailing the matters that show a risk of dissipation of the assets. She says that she wants to stop the defendant from disposing of the assets but not why she considers that there is a risk that he may do so.”
Lord Chief Justice Paulsen said he would therefore refuse an application for an ex parte injunction.
However, he said he was prepared to deal with the application for injunction on notice.
“I direct that the plaintiff is to serve the defendant with the proceedings along with this ruling and the application for injunction and supporting documents forthwith.”
The main points
- The Supreme Court has turned down an application for an injunction over the assets of a tourism business in Vava’u.
- Leisa Marie Francis applied for an injunction against her former partner Lolesio Susitiano Lui,
- The parties had a whale watching and sports fishing business at Vava’u. In July 2017 they separated and in October 2017 the plaintiff returned to Australia with their children.
