Wells v Chave & Ors [2014] EWHC 2444 (Ch) (23 July 2014)

Wells v Chave & Ors [2014] EWHC 2444 (Ch) (23 July 2014)

The freezing order is continued as Mr Chave has established a good arguable case on his counterclaims, there is solid evidence of dishonesty and risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Wells, and it is just and convenient to grant the order. Material non-disclosure and cross-undertaking arguments do not warrant discharge or restriction beyond agreed properties for Mrs Wells.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2444 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant and Part 20 Defendant: Clive Roger Wells; Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Philip Thomas Chave; Second Part 20 Defendant: Tina Wells
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim With Part 20 Proceedings / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order and Related Applications
Outcome
Freezing order continued against Clive Wells and Tina Wells (restricted to specified properties for Mrs Wells); security for costs ordered; other reliefs adjourned or reserved to trial judge.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Constructive Trusts, Fraud Allegations, Security for Costs, Summary Judgment, Material Non Disclosure
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Constructive Trusts Fraud Allegations Security for Costs Summary Judgment +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Roger Wells

Claimant and Part 20 Defendant

Philip Thomas Chave

Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Tina Wells

Second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim With Part 20 Proceedings / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing order should be continued against Clive Wells and Tina Wells
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Wells
  3. 3 Whether material non-disclosure occurred in obtaining the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order is continued as Mr Chave has established a good arguable case on his counterclaims, there is solid evidence of dishonesty and risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Wells, and it is just and convenient to grant the order. Material non-disclosure and cross-undertaking arguments do not warrant discharge or restriction beyond agreed properties for Mrs Wells.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued against Clive Wells and Tina Wells (restricted to specified properties for Mrs Wells); security for costs ordered; other reliefs adjourned or reserved to trial judge.

Orders

  • Continuation of freezing order against Clive Wells and Tina Wells
  • Restriction of freezing order against Mrs Wells to Swanage Property and 33 Hansart Way