CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil And Gas DMCC & Anor [2024] EWHC 2846 (Comm) (08 November 2024)

CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil And Gas DMCC & Anor [2024] EWHC 2846 (Comm) (08 November 2024)

There is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by either Defendant. The Defendants have disclosed assets several times the value of the WFO, much of which is in real property that is not easily disposed of. The Claimant's complaints about non-payment, dishonoured cheques, and incomplete disclosure do not, in the circumstances, amount to evidence of a real risk of dissipation. The Claimant continued to do business with the Defendants despite knowledge of their history, and there is no specific event or conduct indicating imminent dissipation. Accordingly, the WFO is discharged and the application for further disclosure is refused.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2846 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: CE ENERGY DMCC; Defendant/respondent: ULTIMATE OIL AND GAS DMCC; Defendant/respondent: ALHAJI ABDULRAHMAN MUSA BASHAR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Applications in Relation to a Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo) and Ancillary Disclosure / Hearing on Continuation/discharge of WFO and Ancillary Disclosure
Outcome
WFO discharged; application for further disclosure refused; retrospective leave granted for US$75,000 payment if necessary.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Arbitration Act 1996, Senior Courts Act 1981
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Asset Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Arbitration Act 1996 Senior Courts Act 1981

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CE ENERGY DMCC

Claimant/applicant

ULTIMATE OIL AND GAS DMCC

Defendant/respondent

ALHAJI ABDULRAHMAN MUSA BASHAR

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications in Relation to a Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo) and Ancillary Disclosure / Hearing on Continuation/discharge of WFO and Ancillary Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation justifying continuation of the WFO
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to further asset disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the WFO should be discharged

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by either Defendant. The Defendants have disclosed assets several times the value of the WFO, much of which is in real property that is not easily disposed of. The Claimant's complaints about non-payment, dishonoured cheques, and incomplete disclosure do not, in the circumstances, amount to evidence of a real risk of dissipation. The Claimant continued to do business with the Defendants despite knowledge of their history, and there is no specific event or conduct indicating imminent dissipation. Accordingly, the WFO is discharged and the application for further disclosure is refused.

Court Disposition

WFO discharged; application for further disclosure refused; retrospective leave granted for US$75,000 payment if necessary.

Orders

  • Discharge of the worldwide freezing order against both Defendants
  • Refusal of Claimant's application for further disclosure