Armeniakou v Thomson [2025] EWHC 505 (KB) (06 March 2025)

Armeniakou v Thomson [2025] EWHC 505 (KB) (06 March 2025)

Further disclosure of the Defendant's assets and related documents is necessary and just to police the WFO, given the Defendant's unreliable and misleading asset disclosure, credible evidence of asset value discrepancies, and a real risk of asset dissipation. The scope of disclosure is limited to documents from 1 January 2024 onwards (not 2022), and includes company assets and bank statements. Disclosure will not be subject to a confidentiality club, but the Defendant's solicitors may redact information that is both irrelevant and truly private. No additional fortification is required. The Defendant is liable for 85% of the Claimant's costs of the WFO application. Permission to appeal is...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 505 (KB)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou; Respondent/defendant: Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction and Ancillary Disclosure Application / Post Interim Order, Consequential Relief and Further Disclosure Determination
Outcome
Claimant's application for further disclosure granted (with modifications); confidentiality club refused; no additional fortification; Defendant to pay 85% of Claimant's costs; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions), Ancillary Disclosure, Asset Dissipation, Confidentiality in Disclosure, Costs, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Asset Freezing Injunctions Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions) Ancillary Disclosure Asset Dissipation Confidentiality in Disclosure Costs +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou

Applicant/claimant

Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction and Ancillary Disclosure Application / Post Interim Order, Consequential Relief and Further Disclosure Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure of the Defendant's assets and related documents is necessary to police the worldwide freezing order (WFO)
  2. 2 Whether disclosure should be subject to a confidentiality club or redactions for privacy
  3. 3 Whether additional fortification is required for the WFO

Ratio Decidendi

Further disclosure of the Defendant's assets and related documents is necessary and just to police the WFO, given the Defendant's unreliable and misleading asset disclosure, credible evidence of asset value discrepancies, and a real risk of asset dissipation. The scope of disclosure is limited to documents from 1 January 2024 onwards (not 2022), and includes company assets and bank statements. Disclosure will not be subject to a confidentiality club, but the Defendant's solicitors may redact information that is both irrelevant and truly private. No additional fortification is required. The Defendant is liable for 85% of the Claimant's costs of the WFO application. Permission to appeal is...

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for further disclosure granted (with modifications); confidentiality club refused; no additional fortification; Defendant to pay 85% of Claimant's costs; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Defendant to provide further disclosure of assets and documents as specified, limited to documents from 1 January 2024 onwards.
  • Defendant's solicitors permitted to redact information from bank statements that is both irrelevant and truly private before disclosure.