Eliades & Ors v Lewis [2005] EWHC 2966 (QB) (20 December 2005)

Eliades & Ors v Lewis [2005] EWHC 2966 (QB) (20 December 2005)

The court refused to enforce the undertaking as to damages because, on the evidence, there was a real risk of dissipation of assets by Eliades, the freezing order was not wrongly granted, and Eliades's conduct—including dishonesty and attempts to frustrate investigation into his assets—made it inequitable to enforce the undertaking. Even if the undertaking were to be enforced, causation and quantum of loss were not established to the required standard.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2966
Parties
Claimant in the Inquiry Into Damages/defendant in the Action: Panos Eliades; Claimant in the Inquiry Into Damages/defendant in the Action: Panix Promotions Limited; Claimant in the Inquiry Into Damages/defendant in the Action: Panix of the US Inc.; Defendant in the Inquiry Into Damages/claimant in the Action: Lennox Lewis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Inquiry Into Damages Following Discharge of Freezing Order / Judgment After Hearing of Damages Inquiry
Outcome
Claim for enforcement of undertaking as to damages dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Undertaking as to Damages, Discretion to Enforce Undertaking, Causation and Quantum of Damages, Full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation of Assets
Civil Procedure Injunctions Damages Freezing Injunctions Undertaking as to Damages Discretion to Enforce Undertaking Causation and Quantum of Damages Full and Frank Disclosure +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panos Eliades

Claimant in the Inquiry Into Damages/defendant in the Action

Panix Promotions Limited

Claimant in the Inquiry Into Damages/defendant in the Action

Panix of the US Inc.

Claimant in the Inquiry Into Damages/defendant in the Action

Lennox Lewis

Defendant in the Inquiry Into Damages/claimant in the Action

Procedural Posture

Inquiry Into Damages Following Discharge of Freezing Order / Judgment After Hearing of Damages Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to enforce the undertaking as to damages given by Lennox Lewis on the grant of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order was wrongly granted
  3. 3 Whether the claimants suffered loss caused by the freezing order and, if so, the quantum of such loss

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to enforce the undertaking as to damages because, on the evidence, there was a real risk of dissipation of assets by Eliades, the freezing order was not wrongly granted, and Eliades's conduct—including dishonesty and attempts to frustrate investigation into his assets—made it inequitable to enforce the undertaking. Even if the undertaking were to be enforced, causation and quantum of loss were not established to the required standard.

Court Disposition

Claim for enforcement of undertaking as to damages dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded to claimants
  • Costs to be determined separately