Category Archives: Fraud

In Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd v (1) Antoine Mekni (2) Martine Mekni (3) Dorian Mekni (4) Anice Mekni (5) Xiaohui Wang (unreported) [2017] the Claimant obtained judgment against D1 for over £15 million as a result of a fraud. Post judgment, the Claimant obtained a freezing order over D1’s assets and also joined various members of … Continue reading Defendant subject to freezing injunction ordered to disclose source of legal funding

In Candy and others v Holyoake and another, the Court of Appeal ruled that a wide-ranging “notification injunction” granted by the High Court last year was not a distinct type of injunction.  It was, in effect, a modified version of a freezing order, and the same test of risk of dissipation of assets applied as … Continue reading Court of Appeal rules wide-ranging “notification injunction” is not a distinct type of injunction

In Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank, the Court of Appeal has ruled that a third party who helped a defendant dissipate his assets in breach of a worldwide freezing order and receivership order is liable for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.  Contempt of court for breach of the court order qualified as the requisite … Continue reading Court of Appeal rules contempt of court constitutes “unlawful means” in claim for conspiracy to injure

In Frederic Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision not to vary a proprietary freezing order to allow the defendant recourse to proprietary assets in order to meet his living and legal expenses.  The case can be viewed as a restatement of the principle that the subject of a … Continue reading Court of Appeal refuses request to vary freezing order to meet living and legal expenses

In Ramilos Trading Limited v Valentin Mikhaylovich Buyanovsky, the High Court rejected the applicant’s request for a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”).  In rejecting the application, Mr Justice Flaux analysed a number of independent elements that must be present in order to grant an NPO, culminating in a significant judgment which both clarifies existing ambiguities while … Continue reading Role of Norwich Pharmacal relief in foreign proceedings and new threshold test for determining if “wrongdoing” has occurred

The European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”) Regulation will apply in EU Member States other than the UK and Denmark on 18 January 2017.  The Regulation provides creditors with the opportunity to freeze assets in participating Member States on the basis of a single application, and provides creditors with an opportunity to obtain information regarding a … Continue reading European Account Preservation Order Regulation will apply from 18 January 2017

The judgment of Lord Justice Longmore in Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus and others helpfully explains that a freezing injunction may be granted in cases where a cause of action does not yet exist, provided it is possible to issue proceedings for the relief in aid of which the injunction is sought (as … Continue reading Court of Appeal decides that freezing injunction can be granted in aid of a contribution notice

In PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov and others, Mr Justice Picken granted an application for the discharge of a worldwide freezing order previously obtained by the claimant, PJSC Tatneft, against the four defendants.  The application to discharge was brought on the basis that Tatneft’s claim did not amount to a “good arguable case” and/or that there … Continue reading High Court confirms meaning of “good arguable case” test for freezing orders and “risk of dissipation” in context of fraud claims

The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov and others helpfully illustrates the courts’ approach to assessing whether a defendant has suffered loss as a result of an incorrectly granted freezing order, for the purpose of enforcing the claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages. The decision confirms that the court should … Continue reading Cross-undertaking in damages: assessment of loss

In Gerald Metals SA v Timis, Mrs Justice Rose granted an on notice application under CPR 25.1(1)(g) requiring the provision of information about assets that might be the subject of a freezing order.  In doing so she confirmed there was no reason to depart from the two stage test applied in previous case law: Has … Continue reading Court confirms approach to CPR 25.1(1)(g) application for information on assets