Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

David Victor Garofalo v David Crisp & Ors

A businessman (Mr. G) sued another (Mr. C) claiming Mr. C illegally sold perfume to Russia, breaking the law and their business agreement. A judge initially ordered Mr. C's removal from the company to protect it. After a full hearing, the judge agreed that Mr. C likely did break the law, and the order to remove him from the company was kept in place until the final case is heard.

Key Facts

  • David Victor Garofalo (Applicant) filed an unfair prejudice petition under the Companies Act 2006 s.994 against David Crisp and others (Respondents), alleging breaches of sanctions regulations and fiduciary duties.
  • The Respondents are a group of companies involved in the sale of perfume.
  • Mr. Crisp allegedly caused the companies to export perfume to Russia in breach of sanctions, without Mr. Garofalo's knowledge or consent.
  • An ex parte injunction was granted to remove Mr. Crisp as a director and install new directors chosen by Mr. Garofalo.
  • The court considered various allegations, including breach of sanctions, furlough fraud, and use of banned substances.
  • The court heard evidence from numerous witnesses and reviewed considerable documentation.

Legal Principles

Unfair prejudice under Companies Act 2006 s.994

Companies Act 2006 s.994

Power to grant interim relief under Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37

Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37

American Cyanamid test for interlocutory injunctions

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (No.1) [1975] A.C. 396 HL

Higher threshold for mandatory injunctions and orders potentially dispositive of the case

Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc [1993] FSR 468; NWL Limited v Woods [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1294

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Outcomes

The ex parte injunction removing Mr. Crisp as a director and appointing new directors was continued.

The court found a high degree of assurance that Mr. Crisp knowingly breached sanctions regulations, causing unfair prejudice to the companies. The removal of Mr. Crisp was deemed necessary to mitigate reputational damage and protect the viability of the business.

Other ancillary orders (imaging, delivery up, passport order) were left to be considered at trial.

These orders had been fully executed, and there was no immediate urgency to address them.

The court will consider fortification of Mr. Garofalo's cross-undertaking as to damages.

To ensure adequate protection for Mr. Crisp in case the injunction is ultimately overturned.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.