Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
In the circumstances of this case and for the reasons summarised above, I agreed that it was just and convenient to grant a worldwide freezing order in the sum of £5,159,709.28 (a sum which includes the principal sum claimed and interest). It was also appropriate to grant the proprietary injunction sought over the sums received from the Company into the bank account of the Respondents, and over any asset purchased with or representing the proceeds of those sums. There is plainly a serious issue to be tried and damages are not an adequate remedy for the Liquidators. Furthermore, to the extent that the injunction might cause any damage to the Respondents, I was satisfied there was adequate protection for them in the limited cross-undertaking proffered. I also concluded that both injunctions should be reinforced with an order for provision of information as to the assets exceeding £5,000 in value held by either of the Respondents worldwide.
Finally, for reasons which I need not relate, Counsel indicated that it might take some time to effect service of the Order on the Respondents. For this reason I have directed that this Judgment is not to be published until after the Respondents have had notice of the Order, even though I was not asked to sit in private to hear the Application.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- BACKGROUND
- THE LIQUIDATORS CASE IN SUMMARY
- Unlawful distributions
- Directors Duties
- The Interim relief sought
- THE ISSUES IN MORE DETAIL
- Injections of funds into the Company
- Payments out – The Alleged Diversions
- The position of the Second Respondent
- The position of the First Respondent
- FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE
- THE INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
- RISK OF DISSIPATION
- DELAY / THE ‘STABLE DOOR’ POINT
- ASSETS
- JUST AND CONVENIENT
- DISCLOSURE ORDER
- CROSS-UNDERTAKING IN DAMAGES
- Conclusions
![CR-2024-000675 - [2025] EWHC 2069 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)