Jonathan Harris Sinclair v Rodney Whiston-Dew & Anor

Jonathan Harris Sinclair v Rodney Whiston-Dew & Anor

Neither the First Defendant nor Churwitz Stanford AG Holdings Ltd have any right, title, or interest in the escrow account held by the Claimant. Any interest the First Defendant may have had vested in his Trustee in Bankruptcy upon bankruptcy. The Defendants' attempts to claim the escrow sum through charging orders and Tomlin orders were fraudulent and invalid, and the court granted the declaration sought by the Claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Harris Sinclair; First Defendant: Rodney Whiston-Dew; Second Defendant: Churwitz Stanford AG Holdings Ltd; Interested Party: Virgil Levy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant
Legal Topics
Escrow Funds, Bankruptcy, Confiscation Order, Corporate Veil, Charging Order, Tomlin Order, Abuse of Process
Insolvency Fraud Civil Procedure Escrow Funds Bankruptcy Confiscation Order Corporate Veil Charging Order +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Harris Sinclair

Claimant

Rodney Whiston-Dew

First Defendant

Churwitz Stanford AG Holdings Ltd

Second Defendant

Virgil Levy

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First or Second Defendant have any right, title or interest in the escrow account held by the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the escrow sum is vested in the Claimant or the First Defendant's Trustee in Bankruptcy
  3. 3 Validity of charging orders and Tomlin orders post-bankruptcy

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the First Defendant nor Churwitz Stanford AG Holdings Ltd have any right, title, or interest in the escrow account held by the Claimant. Any interest the First Defendant may have had vested in his Trustee in Bankruptcy upon bankruptcy. The Defendants' attempts to claim the escrow sum through charging orders and Tomlin orders were fraudulent and invalid, and the court granted the declaration sought by the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant

Orders

  • Neither the First Defendant nor Churwitz Stanford AG Holdings Ltd have any right, title or interest in the escrow account held by the Claimant
  • Costs awarded to the Claimant on indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £5,324.25