Key Facts
- •Claimant (Jahangir Piroozzadeh) alleges fraud, transferring CAD$1,990,051 and 870,818 USDT to various accounts.
- •USDT was traced to Binance Holdings Limited (8th Defendant) and Aux Cayes Fintech Co Ltd (9th Defendant) exchanges.
- •Sir Anthony Mann granted a without notice injunction against several defendants, including freezing USDT.
- •8th Defendant applied to discharge the injunction, arguing it was improperly obtained without notice and lacked fair presentation.
- •The 8th Defendant's operations involve pooling crypto assets, meaning the USDT was mixed with other assets.
- •The claimant's legal representatives failed to adequately address the 8th defendant's likely bona fide purchaser defence.
Legal Principles
An order should not be made against a party without notice unless giving notice would cause injustice to the applicant.
Re First Express Ltd [1992] BCLC 824
An applicant for without notice relief must show utmost good faith, disclose fully and fairly, identify crucial points for and against the application, and anticipate likely defences.
Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 428; Pugachev [2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch)
The judge on a without notice application relies on a full and fair summary of evidence; the applicant must actively consider and put before the court likely defences.
Fundo Soberano De Angola v Jose Filomeno Dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm)
A bona fide purchaser for value without notice is not subject to a beneficiary's proprietary interest.
Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] AC 424
Outcomes
The injunction against the 8th Defendant is discharged.
The claimant failed to make a fair presentation of the case at the without notice hearing, neglecting to address the 8th defendant's likely bona fide purchaser defence and other key points. The injunction was also impractical given the pooling of assets.