Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

Further disclosure of the Defendant’s assets (with supporting documents from 1 January 2024) is necessary and just to police the freezing order due to credible evidence of asset dissipation and unreliable disclosure. Disclosure of bank statements will not be subject to a confidentiality club but may be redacted for truly private and irrelevant information. No further fortification is justified as there is insufficient evidence of loss caused by the injunction. Costs awarded to the Claimant at 85% on the standard basis, to be summarily assessed. Permission to appeal is refused as no grounds have real prospects of success.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou; Respondent/defendant: Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (freezing Order/asset Disclosure) / Post Interim Relief; Consequential Applications Following Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Claimant’s application for further disclosure granted (with modifications); confidentiality club refused; no further fortification; costs awarded to Claimant at 85%; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions), Asset Disclosure, Confidentiality Clubs, Fortification of Undertakings, Costs Assessment, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Injunctions Asset Tracing Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions) Asset Disclosure Confidentiality Clubs Fortification of Undertakings Costs Assessment +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou

Applicant/claimant

Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (freezing Order/asset Disclosure) / Post Interim Relief; Consequential Applications Following Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure of the Defendant’s assets should be ordered to police the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of bank statements should be subject to confidentiality club or redaction
  3. 3 Whether further fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages is required

Ratio Decidendi

Further disclosure of the Defendant’s assets (with supporting documents from 1 January 2024) is necessary and just to police the freezing order due to credible evidence of asset dissipation and unreliable disclosure. Disclosure of bank statements will not be subject to a confidentiality club but may be redacted for truly private and irrelevant information. No further fortification is justified as there is insufficient evidence of loss caused by the injunction. Costs awarded to the Claimant at 85% on the standard basis, to be summarily assessed. Permission to appeal is refused as no grounds have real prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Claimant’s application for further disclosure granted (with modifications); confidentiality club refused; no further fortification; costs awarded to Claimant at 85%; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Defendant to provide further disclosure of assets and supporting documents from 1 January 2024 (except for one category, as specified) within 10 days, subject to redaction for truly private and irrelevant information.
  • No confidentiality club for bank statements; redactions permitted as specified.