Application for interim injunction — without notice basis — debt owing — proceeds of sale — District Court Rules 2014, r 7.45 — Peters v Collinge [1993] 2 NZLR 554 . The applicants applied for an interim injunction on a without notice basis for an order that the defendants pay the sum of $44,387.02 from the proceeds of sale of a property, or alternatively that they refrain from removing the proceeds of sale from New Zealand until security for that sum had been given. The injunction had been granted and these reasons followed. The Judge noted that the proceedings had since been discontinued. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had approached them for a loan to build a property, and the terms of the loan stipulated that the defendants would repay the amount upon completion of the construction when the defendants would be able to refinance. On completion, the first defendant indicated that the net funds available after the sale would be $61,185.00 and that a quarter, being $15,296.25, would be paid to the plaintiffs in full and final settlement. Pursuant to r 7.45 a court could grant an interim injunction before the commencement of proceedings. Case law established the principles on such an application: it was not for the court to determine fully the parties' rights in relation to the proceedings, rather whether there was a serious question to be tried and where the balance of convenience lies. The court should also consider whether the result is affected by factors such as relative strength of the parties' cases, whether there was any delay on the part of the plaintiff, and the conduct of the parties. The court must then consider where the justice of the case lies. The plaintiffs filed a detailed affidavit outlining the correspondence between the parties, which established that the money had been advanced on an interest-free basis to be repaid on refinancing, despite the defendants' submissions to the contrary. There was therefore a serious question to be tried. As the money was available at the time of application, the balance fell in favour of granting the injunction as it was unclear whether there would be funds for damages if the plaintiffs were to be successful at trial. There had been no delay in the plaintiffs' application and they had a reasonably strong case. The Judge considered it just in all the circumstances to grant the injunction. Judgment Date: 19 March 2021.