Craig Wright v Peter McCormack (WFO Judgment)
[2024] EWHC 1735 (KB)
Jurisdiction to grant a freezing order for prospective costs orders.
Various authorities, including *Jet West Ltd v. Haddican*, *Cooke v Venulum Property Investments Ltd*, *Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd*, *Re G*, and *Santina Limited v Rare Art (London) Ltd*.
Conditions for granting a freezing order: (i) good arguable case on the merits; (ii) real risk of asset dissipation; (iii) just in all circumstances.
General principles of freezing order jurisprudence.
Assessment of risk of dissipation considers various factors including dishonesty, asset transfers, prior defaults, and asset structures.
*Fundo Soberano de Angola v Jose Filomeno dos Santos*, and other cases cited in sections 28-42.
Delay in applying for a freezing order is a relevant but not determinative factor in assessing risk of dissipation.
*JSC Mezhdunarodniy Bank v Pugachev*, *Gulf International v Aldwood*, and *Antonio Gramsci v Recoletos*.
Worldwide freezing order of £6 million granted against Dr. Craig Wright.
COPA demonstrated a strong case for costs recovery, a real risk of asset dissipation by Dr. Wright, and the justice of granting the order considering all circumstances. The court found jurisdiction to grant a freezing order for prospective costs.
Costs applications by COPA and the Developers to be determined later, after Dr. Wright's legal team has had time to prepare.
To ensure fairness and allow Dr. Wright's team to present counterarguments on costs.
Directions given for asset disclosure by Dr. Wright.
To aid in the enforcement of the freezing order.
[2024] EWHC 1735 (KB)
[2023] EWHC 1893 (Ch)
[2023] EWHC 1894 (Ch)
[2023] EWHC 3287 (Ch)
[2024] EWCA Civ 1109