Key Facts
- •David Victor Garofalo (Applicant/Intended Petitioner) applied for interim relief against David Adrian Crisp (Respondent/Respondent in an intended Petition) and Yulia Crisp (Respondent) regarding Valorem Holdings Limited and related companies.
- •The application concerned alleged unfair prejudice caused by David Adrian Crisp's actions, including the potential breach of sanctions related to trading with Russia.
- •The Applicant sought orders for imaging of electronic devices, injunctive relief, disclosure, a passport order, and prohibitory orders.
- •The Applicant presented evidence suggesting the First Respondent continued trading with Russia despite agreements to cease and sanctions against such trade.
- •The application was heard ex parte and in private due to concerns about evidence destruction and the potential impact on the company's reputation.
Legal Principles
Unfair prejudice under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006
Companies Act 2006
Interim relief under s.37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and relevant CPR rules
Senior Courts Act 1981, Civil Procedure Rules
Granting of mandatory injunctions
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (No.1) [1975] A.C. 396 HL (by analogy)
Imaging orders and search orders
Civil Procedure Act 1997, CPR Part 25.1
Passport orders
Senior Courts Act 1981
Directors' duties under the Companies Act 2006
Companies Act 2006
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Outcomes
Interim orders granted, including removal of the First Respondent as a director, appointment of new directors, imaging order, and a passport order.
Strong prima facie case of unfair prejudice; risk of evidence destruction; need to protect company reputation and prevent further losses; urgency of the situation.
Lilial Issue and Furlough Fraud Issue not considered due to insufficient evidence.
Hearsay evidence was insufficient to grant relief.
Passport Order subsequently discontinued by consent order.
Agreed by the parties.