Frenkel v Lyampert & Anor (No. 2) [2017] EWHC 3121 (Ch) (04 December 2017)

Frenkel v Lyampert & Anor (No. 2) [2017] EWHC 3121 (Ch) (04 December 2017)

The freezing injunction was discharged because the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure at the without notice hearing. Material facts were withheld or misrepresented, including the true status and service of US proceedings, the impact on the UK Company, and the confidentiality of evidence. These failures were serious and undermined the integrity of the interim relief process. The court declined to continue or replace the injunction.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3121 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Roman Frenkel; First Defendant: Arkadiy Lyampert; Second Defendant: LA Micro Group (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction / Interim Relief in Support of Foreign Judgment Enforcement / Post Trial, Application to Discharge or Continue Interim Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction discharged; no continuation or replacement ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Material Non Disclosure, Confidentiality Orders, Chabra Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Private International Law Company Law Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Material Non Disclosure Confidentiality Orders Chabra Jurisdiction

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roman Frenkel

Claimant

Arkadiy Lyampert

First Defendant

LA Micro Group (UK) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction / Interim Relief in Support of Foreign Judgment Enforcement / Post Trial, Application to Discharge or Continue Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged for material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the injunction should be continued or replaced
  3. 3 Whether there was full and frank disclosure at the without notice hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction was discharged because the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure at the without notice hearing. Material facts were withheld or misrepresented, including the true status and service of US proceedings, the impact on the UK Company, and the confidentiality of evidence. These failures were serious and undermined the integrity of the interim relief process. The court declined to continue or replace the injunction.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged; no continuation or replacement ordered.

Orders

  • The freezing injunction granted on 17 July 2017 is discharged.
  • No further injunction is granted or continued.