News

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 [5] 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 [15], [19], [28] [22], [23] 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 [23].

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 [31] of the judgement).

For the full judgement click below: