Described as a ‘battle of attrition’ in a relationship property dispute over assets valued at some twenty million dollars, the High Court refused Guy Pask a freezing order over assets held in the name of estranged former partner Anita Liu. Assets claimed as relationship property were put into Ms Liu’s sole name in part to prevent claims by Mr Pask’s former wife.
The pool of assets includes bank accounts, three residential properties, shares in listed companies and their Christchurch advertising consultancy: Double Lux Ltd.
The High Court was told they separated in 2022.
Legal manoeuvring has seen a family trust controlled by Ms Liu attempting to remove Mr Pask from the former family home and Mr Pask unilaterally transferring all Double Lux assets across to a new business he controls. Companies Office records list Ms Liu as sole director and shareholder of Double Lux.
As part of ongoing litigation, Mr Pask asked the High Court to freeze liquid assets controlled by Ms Liu valued at $4.5 million: five Australian bank accounts and shares in listed companies.
It is agreed these assets are relationship property. What is in dispute is the ratio for division between the two.
Ms Liu says she is entitled to compensation for Mr Pask’s post-separation conduct in unilaterally taking all Double Lux assets. In addition, there is a question of spousal maintenance.
Justice La Hood ruled a freezing order was not appropriate.
Such orders are made where there is a threat one litigant will become ‘judgment-proof’ by dissipating assets in advance of a prospective adverse court judgment.
Given the value of all assets under Ms Liu’s control, she will be able to meet Mr Pask’s claim to a half share of the $4.5 million liquid assets, even should she dissipate these liquid assets, Justice La Hood ruled.
Ms Liu said Mr Pask’s application for a freezing order was simply an attempt to block her access to ready cash for living expenses.
Pask v. Liu – High Court (13.05.24)
24.122