Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

The Applicant has a good arguable case in the Greek proceedings for misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding the EDV and PYR tokens. There is solid evidence of a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by the Respondent, based on his lack of transparency, misleading conduct, and actions to put assets beyond reach. The FO should be continued. The scope of the FO will not be extended worldwide nor will the ADO be discharged or varied at this stage; further submissions are invited on these points. There was no material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the FO.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou; Respondent/defendant: Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Freezing Order and Asset Disclosure in Support of Foreign Proceedings / Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Interim Orders
Outcome
FO continued; ADO as varied to remain in place; no extension to worldwide FO at this stage; further submissions invited on scope of ADO and WFO.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction in Support of Foreign Proceedings
Civil Procedure Family Law Commercial Law Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Jurisdiction in Support of Foreign Proceedings

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou

Applicant/claimant

Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Order and Asset Disclosure in Support of Foreign Proceedings / Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order (FO) should be continued
  2. 2 Whether the FO should be extended worldwide (WFO)
  3. 3 Whether the asset disclosure order (ADO) should be discharged or varied

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant has a good arguable case in the Greek proceedings for misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding the EDV and PYR tokens. There is solid evidence of a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by the Respondent, based on his lack of transparency, misleading conduct, and actions to put assets beyond reach. The FO should be continued. The scope of the FO will not be extended worldwide nor will the ADO be discharged or varied at this stage; further submissions are invited on these points. There was no material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the FO.

Court Disposition

FO continued; ADO as varied to remain in place; no extension to worldwide FO at this stage; further submissions invited on scope of ADO and WFO.

Orders

  • Freezing order continued against Respondent's assets in England and Wales.
  • Asset disclosure order (as varied) to remain in place.