Global Asset Portfolio Limited v Fazriki Limited & Ors

Global Asset Portfolio Limited v Fazriki Limited & Ors

There is a good arguable case for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and clear evidence of asset dissipation justifying continuation of the freezing injunction. The respondents have failed to provide credible evidence of the whereabouts of the funds or compliance with asset disclosure obligations. The claimant must provide further security for the cross-undertaking in damages.

Parties
Claimant: Global Asset Portfolio Limited; First Defendant: Fazriki Limited; Second Defendant: Ms Mila Raedermacher; Third Defendant: Cassillis Investment Management Limited; Fourth Defendant: Cyborn Limited; Fifth Defendant: Cuckoobag; Sixth Defendant: Arden SG Holdings PTE Limited; Seventh Defendant: Mr Cunliffe; Eighth Defendant: Protectir Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued with additional conditions
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Asset Dissipation, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunction Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Asset Dissipation Cross Undertaking in Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Global Asset Portfolio Limited

Claimant

Fazriki Limited

First Defendant

Ms Mila Raedermacher

Second Defendant

Cassillis Investment Management Limited

Third Defendant

Cyborn Limited

Fourth Defendant

Cuckoobag

Fifth Defendant

Arden SG Holdings PTE Limited

Sixth Defendant

Mr Cunliffe

Seventh Defendant

Protectir Limited

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a good arguable case for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of a freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has provided adequate cross-undertaking in damages

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and clear evidence of asset dissipation justifying continuation of the freezing injunction. The respondents have failed to provide credible evidence of the whereabouts of the funds or compliance with asset disclosure obligations. The claimant must provide further security for the cross-undertaking in damages.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued with additional conditions

Orders

  • Global Asset Portfolio Limited to produce within 28 days the sum of £100,000 to be held in a solicitors’ account for the proceedings.
  • Mr Wright to provide a further affidavit detailing his personal assets and documentary evidence of the Backters token holdings.