CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil and Gas DMCC & Anor

CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil and Gas DMCC & Anor

There is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by either Defendant. The Defendants have disclosed assets far exceeding the WFO amount, much of which is in real property, and there is no primary evidence of attempts to dissipate assets. The Claimant's complaints relate to non-payment and unsatisfactory conduct but do not amount to evidence of dissipation. The WFO is therefore discharged and the application for further disclosure is refused.

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
11 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial/arbitration Related / Application to Continue or Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo)
Outcome
WFO discharged; application for further disclosure refused; retrospective leave granted for US$75,000 payment if necessary.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Arbitration Support, Personal Guarantees
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Arbitration Support Personal Guarantees

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 8
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

Commercial/arbitration Related / Application to Continue or Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the WFO
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to further disclosure in aid of the WFO
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by either Defendant. The Defendants have disclosed assets far exceeding the WFO amount, much of which is in real property, and there is no primary evidence of attempts to dissipate assets. The Claimant's complaints relate to non-payment and unsatisfactory conduct but do not amount to evidence of dissipation. The WFO is therefore 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

  • Worldwide Freezing Order discharged against both Defendants.
  • Claimant's application for further disclosure dismissed.