Ricardo Benjamin Salinas Pliego & Anor v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2522 (Comm)
Apparel Fzco v Sheeraz Iqbal
26 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1931 (Comm)
High Court
A company got a court order to freeze another person's assets, but they didn't tell the court everything they should have. The judge decided that the company didn't have a strong enough case to keep the freeze in place and that there wasn't a real risk of the person hiding their money. So the freeze was lifted because the original application was unfair.
Key Facts
- •Apparel FZCO obtained a freezing injunction against Sheeraz Iqbal on February 9, 2004.
- •The injunction was granted ex parte by Mr Justice Knowles CBE based on an application by Apparel's previous solicitors.
- •Apparel alleged Iqbal was involved in a fraud where individuals impersonating TK Maxx employees purchased goods from Apparel.
- •The goods were shipped and subsequently sold by LGD Import Export BV.
- •Iqbal claims he was duped by the impersonators and acted as an agent.
- •Apparel brought an application to continue the freezing injunction.
- •Iqbal argued the injunction should be set aside due to Apparel's failure to provide full and frank disclosure.
Legal Principles
Duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications for freezing injunctions.
Lloyds Bowmaker Ltd v Britannia Arrow PLC [1998] 1 WLR 1337, Bank Mellat v Nikpour [1985] FSR 87, Brink’s Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350, Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269, Fundo Soberano De Angola v Jose Filomeno dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm), Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417, Marc Rich & Co Holding GmbH v Krasner [1999] C.L.Y. 487, Tugushev v Orlov [2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm), Derma Med v Ally [2024] EWCA Civ 175
Test for a 'good arguable case' and 'real risk of dissipation' in freezing injunction applications.
Kazakhstan Kagazy plc & Ors v Arip [2014] 1 CLC 451, Alternative Investment Solutions (General) Ltd v Valle de Uco Resort & Spa SA [2013] EWHC 333 (QB), Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Moritomo [2019] EWCA Civ 2203, Candy v Holyoake [2018] Ch 297, Gulf Air BSC v One Flight Ltd [2018] EWHC 1019 (Comm), ArccelorMital v Ruia and Others [2020] EWHC 740 (Comm)
Outcomes
The application to continue or reinstate the freezing injunction was dismissed.
Apparel failed to meet the duty of full and frank disclosure in the initial application. The evidence presented did not establish a good arguable case or a real risk of dissipation of assets. The court found that the original application for the injunction contained misleading statements and failed to highlight evidence which supported Iqbal's defence.
Similar Cases
Marco Piacquadio & Anor (as Joint Liquidators of Smith & Partner LTD) v Luke Sparkes & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2518 (Ch)
Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2147 (Ch)
Saeed Akbar v Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1275 (Ch)
MEX Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 959