FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino & Ors [2018] EWHC 2612 (Comm) (09 October 2018)

FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino & Ors [2018] EWHC 2612 (Comm) (09 October 2018)

There is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Ohmura, established by findings of dishonesty, use of fronting companies, creation of sham documents, and lack of credible evidence, justifying continuation of the worldwide freezing order post-judgment. The transfer of the Swiss Property was legitimate and not itself indicative of dissipation. Delay by the Claimant is not fatal and does not outweigh the risk of dissipation.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2612 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: FM Capital Partners Ltd; First Defendant: Frédéric Marino; Second Defendant: Aurélien Bessot; Third Defendant: Yoshiki Ohmura; Fourth Defendant: Marit Sjovaag (formerly known as Marit Sjovaag Marino)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Post Judgment Application / Application to Discharge or Continue Worldwide Freezing Order Post Judgment
Outcome
Application to discharge the worldwide freezing order dismissed; freezing order continued until further order.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Judgments, Risk of Dissipation, Dishonest Assistance, Bribery, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Judgments Risk of Dissipation Dishonest Assistance Bribery Asset Disclosure

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

FM Capital Partners Ltd

Claimant

Frédéric Marino

First Defendant

Aurélien Bessot

Second Defendant

Yoshiki Ohmura

Third Defendant

Marit Sjovaag (formerly known as Marit Sjovaag Marino)

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Post Judgment Application / Application to Discharge or Continue Worldwide Freezing Order Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Ohmura justifying continuation of a worldwide freezing order post-judgment
  2. 2 Whether the transfer of the Swiss Property was legitimate or indicative of dissipation
  3. 3 Whether delay by the Claimant in seeking the freezing order is fatal to the application

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Ohmura, established by findings of dishonesty, use of fronting companies, creation of sham documents, and lack of credible evidence, justifying continuation of the worldwide freezing order post-judgment. The transfer of the Swiss Property was legitimate and not itself indicative of dissipation. Delay by the Claimant is not fatal and does not outweigh the risk of dissipation.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the worldwide freezing order dismissed; freezing order continued until further order.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order against Mr Ohmura continued until further order.
  • Court to hear submissions on consequential matters and applications to vary the freezing order.