Kanev-Lipinski v Aharon Lipinski & Ors [2016] EWHC 475 (QB) (01 March 2016)

Kanev-Lipinski v Aharon Lipinski & Ors [2016] EWHC 475 (QB) (01 March 2016)

There was no material non-disclosure by the claimant at the without notice hearing. However, the claimant failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets by the first defendant or the companies. Accordingly, the requirements for continued or varied freezing and asset preservation relief under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 were not met. Proprietary relief was not available in support of a money claim. Disclosure orders ancillary to freezing relief were refused as unnecessary. The application to amend to add a contractual claim for disclosure was adjourned pending clarification from the Israeli court on jurisdiction.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 475
Parties
Claimant: Maya Kanev-Lipinski; First Defendant: Shahar Aharon Lipinski; Second Defendant: Megaclose Limited; Third Defendant: Megaclose (Leicester) Limited; Fourth Defendant: Byron Works Ltd; Fifth Defendant: East Midlands Technical Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing and Asset Preservation Orders in Support of Foreign (israeli) Divorce Proceedings / Substantive Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Interim Relief
Outcome
Application for continued or varied freezing and asset preservation relief refused; application to amend claim form adjourned.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Preservation, Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Disclosure Orders, Jurisdiction and Forum Conveniens, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications
Civil Procedure Family Law Private International Law Freezing Injunctions Asset Preservation Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Disclosure Orders +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maya Kanev-Lipinski

Claimant

Shahar Aharon Lipinski

First Defendant

Megaclose Limited

Second Defendant

Megaclose (Leicester) Limited

Third Defendant

Byron Works Ltd

Fourth Defendant

East Midlands Technical Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Freezing and Asset Preservation Orders in Support of Foreign (israeli) Divorce Proceedings / Substantive Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant at the without notice hearing justifying discharge of interim orders
  2. 2 Whether the English court should grant continued or varied freezing/asset preservation relief in support of Israeli proceedings under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying freezing relief

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material non-disclosure by the claimant at the without notice hearing. However, the claimant failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets by the first defendant or the companies. Accordingly, the requirements for continued or varied freezing and asset preservation relief under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 were not met. Proprietary relief was not available in support of a money claim. Disclosure orders ancillary to freezing relief were refused as unnecessary. The application to amend to add a contractual claim for disclosure was adjourned pending clarification from the Israeli court on jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application for continued or varied freezing and asset preservation relief refused; application to amend claim form adjourned.

Orders

  • Freezing and asset preservation orders discharged; no further interim relief granted.
  • Disclosure orders refused.