Summary

In the circumstances, there was an appreciable risk that the defendant, who appeared to be guilty of dishonesty, would place assets beyond the reach of her creditors and therefore a freezing order would be continued.

Facts

Application by claimant ('C') for the continuation of a freezing order granted against the first defendant ('D') on 17 October 2003. In proceedings commenced during 2002, C alleged that D had made a significant number of unauthorised and unlawful payments out of the assets of C between 1999 and 2001 and had procured by deception the grant of a loan to another company. C opted not to seek a freezing order upon the issue of proceedings, as it appeared that D had more than sufficient tangible assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy C's claim. Since then, further proceedings had been commenced by another party against D claiming sums in excess of £14 million. C argued that in light of the latest proceedings the position had changed and D now had a powerful incentive to place assets beyond the reach of her creditors.

Held

Mere dishonesty was not a sufficient ground to continue the freezing order. The court had to have regard to this particular defendant and ask whether in light of the apparent misconduct there was a real risk of dissipation. In the circumstances, there was an appreciable risk that someone who appeared to be guilty of dishonesty would take steps to put some of her assets out of the reach of her creditors. The freezing order would be continued.

Order accordingly.