The claimants alleged that the defendant (G) had, in effect, defrauded them of some £8m. In 2011, a freezing order was obtained on an application without notice. Within a month or so, that freezing order was discharged. The claimants subsequently learned that a company owned and controlled by G had obtained an arbitration award in its favour for a sum of some $6m, and it appeared that some $2m was credited to an account in the name of a company which G owned. The claimants applied for a new freezing order, which was granted on a without notice application. The matter again came before the court and an order was made by consent (see  of the judgment).
The claimants applied for orders: (i) that a stay of the enforcement of the judgment for £2.5m be lifted; (ii) an order that the funds standing to the credit of an account in Abu Dhabi be transferred to an alternative account; (iii) that G take all necessary steps needed to execute a second legal charge over the property; and (iv) that the defendant swear and serve on the claimants an affidavit containing certain information. G did not have the opportunity to respond to the evidence served by C.
G submitted that C was not entitled to judgement in the sum of £2.5 million on the facts, and that there was a stay in place, preventing wider disclosure orders from being obtained.
The issue for consideration was whether the orders sought should be granted.
The court ruled:
On the facts, the application for judgement for £2.5m was misplaced and premature. Accordingly, the court would decline to enter judgement in favour of the claimants and decline to make an order for the execution of the second charge: paras , ,  ,  of the judgement.
The Court held that there was stay in place and did not think there was any merit in a further affidavit of assets, or the provision of information in view of the stay of the proceedings .
At the present stage, the court was prepared to make only one order, which was that G should give the information relating to his expenditure on ordinary living expenses and legal advice and representation. In all other respects the court would decline to make any orders (see  of the judgement).
For the full judgement click below: