representative work

Cassels Successfully Represents Waters Estate in Resisting Motion to Set Aside ex parte Mareva Injunction, Norwich Order, and Certificates of Pending Litigation


Cassels successfully represented the Estate of Dr. William Robert Waters in resisting a motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, Norwich order and Certificates of Pending Litigation brought by the defendants. The Mareva order freezing accounts and Certificates of Pending Litigation registered against property will remain in place until the upcoming trial.

The Cassels team, on behalf of the Waters Estate, commenced the underlying action against Gillian Henry and associated defendants/corporations claiming, among other relief, undue influence, unjust enrichment and resulting trust relating to over $29 million dollars transferred from Waters to Henry while she was employed as a personal support worker.

An ex parte Mareva injunction, Norwich Order, and Certificates of Pending Litigation was obtained against the Henry defendants accounts and assets at the outset of these proceedings. The Mareva injunction entailed freezing the assets of the Henry defendants until a judgment is rendered on the merits of the case (Mareva injunction) to prohibit the dissipation, transfer, or alienation of the assets. The Norwich order provided the Waters Estate access to banking details of the Henry Defendants. The Certificates of Pending Litigation were registered against 11 properties.

The Henry defendants moved to set aside the Mareva injunction and Certificates of Pending Litigation, alleging that the Waters Estate did not make out a strong prima facie case, make full and frank disclosure of material facts, nor was there any risk of dissipation of assets.

Justice Centa disagreed with the Henry defendants on all matters and dismissed the motion. On behalf of the Waters Estate, the Cassels team was successful in arguing a strong prima facie case on the majority of claims, with the full and frank disclosure made out. Due to the continued changing hands of the concerned funds, Justice Centa found there to be a significant risk that the Henry defendants would dissipate the assets in advance of trial and that the continued injunctive relief was appropriate.

A copy of the decision can be found here.