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 defendants. The evidence did not support the existence of such a risk, and the business was subject to significant oversight and controls. Therefore, continued freezing and asset preservation relief was not justified. The application to amend the claim form to add a contractual disclosure claim was adjourned pending further developments in the Israeli proceedings and clarification of jurisdiction.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 475 (QB)
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 / Return Date Hearing (substantive Consideration of Interim Relief)
Outcome
Application for continued freezing and asset preservation orders refused; application to amend claim form adjourned.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Preservation, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Disclosure Orders, Jurisdiction, Non Disclosure, Divorce Asset Division
Civil Procedure Family Law Private International Law Freezing Injunctions Asset Preservation Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Disclosure Orders Jurisdiction +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 8
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 / Return Date Hearing (substantive Consideration of Interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to continued freezing and asset preservation relief in support of Israeli divorce proceedings under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant at the without notice hearing justifying discharge of the orders
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants justifying continued 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 defendants. The evidence did not support the existence of such a risk, and the business was subject to significant oversight and controls. Therefore, continued freezing and asset preservation relief was not justified. The application to amend the claim form to add a contractual disclosure claim was adjourned pending further developments in the Israeli proceedings and clarification of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Freezing and asset preservation orders discharged.
  • Disclosure orders refused.