Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza & Anor
[2024] EWHC 267 (Comm)
CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil and Gas DMCC & Anor
8 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2846 (Comm)
High Court
A company tried to freeze the assets of another company and a businessman to get paid for fuel. Even though the businessman acted strangely (lots of bounced checks), the judge decided there wasn't enough proof he would hide his money, so the freeze was lifted.
Key Facts
- •CE Energy DMCC (Claimant) sought to continue a worldwide freezing order (WFO) against Ultimate Oil and Gas DMCC and Alhaji Abdulrahman Musa Bashar (Defendants).
- •The WFO, initially granted ex parte, was valued at approximately US$33 million, securing claims arising from various gas oil and Jet A1 contracts.
- •Disputes involved unpaid invoices, dishonored cheques, and alleged breaches of contract.
- •The Defendants argued that the Claimant had not met the threshold for a WFO, citing insufficient evidence of a risk of asset dissipation.
- •Significant amounts had already been paid despite the dishonored cheques.
Legal Principles
To obtain a WFO, the claimant must demonstrate an arguable case, or a plausible evidential basis for finding a risk of dissipation.
Petroceltic Resources Limited & Ors v David Fraser Archer [2018] EWHC 671 (Comm)
The burden of proof rests on the applicant to satisfy the threshold for a freezing order; a failure to adduce sufficient evidence will result in the application's failure.
Holyoake v Candy [2018] Ch 296
Dishonesty does not automatically prove a real risk of dissipation; the court must consider all circumstances.
Les Ambassadeurs Club Limited v Albluewi [2020] EWHC 1313 (QB)
Delay in applying for a WFO, without a specific trigger event for dissipation, weighs against granting the order.
Ivy Technology v Martin [2019] EWHC 2510
The obligation of full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application for a WFO is of fundamental importance.
This case
Outcomes
The WFO was discharged.
The court found insufficient evidence to establish a real risk of asset dissipation by either defendant, despite acknowledging unsatisfactory conduct by the defendants.
The Claimant's application for further disclosure was dismissed.
The WFO was discharged, making the application for further disclosure moot.
Retrospective leave was granted for a US$75,000 payment.
The payment did not reduce the defendants' assets below the WFO sum.
Full and frank disclosure complaints were rejected.
The court found the complaints to be unrealistic in light of the circumstances.
Similar Cases
Canada Inc v Sovereign Finance Holdings Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2170 (Comm)
JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Igot Valeryvich Kolomoisky & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 165 (Ch)
Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2147 (Ch)
4VVV Limited & Ors v Nicholas Spence & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1 (Comm)