Dodoun v Collings & Anor [2019] EWHC 2008 (Ch) (25 July 2019)

Dodoun v Collings & Anor [2019] EWHC 2008 (Ch) (25 July 2019)

There is a good arguable case for the claims relating to both the client/investor funds and the Medtag funds, justifying amendment of the claim to include derivative and proprietary claims. However, the freezing order should not be continued in respect of the Medtag funds due to insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation and the limited assets available. The appropriate course for the client/investor funds is to require the sums to be paid into a blocked account pending trial or further order, rendering the freezing order in respect of those funds unnecessary.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2008 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Shalom Dodoun; First Defendant: Bryan Collings; Second Defendant: Marina Akopian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order and Amendment of Claim
Outcome
Partial continuation and partial discharge of injunction; permission to amend claim granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Derivative Actions, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Trust, Proprietary Claims, Unjust Enrichment, Money Laundering Allegations
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunctions Derivative Actions Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Trust Proprietary Claims +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shalom Dodoun

Claimant

Bryan Collings

First Defendant

Marina Akopian

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order and Amendment of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be continued or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the claim form and particulars of claim should be amended to include derivative and proprietary claims
  3. 3 Whether there is a good arguable case for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and proprietary relief

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case for the claims relating to both the client/investor funds and the Medtag funds, justifying amendment of the claim to include derivative and proprietary claims. However, the freezing order should not be continued in respect of the Medtag funds due to insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation and the limited assets available. The appropriate course for the client/investor funds is to require the sums to be paid into a blocked account pending trial or further order, rendering the freezing order in respect of those funds unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Partial continuation and partial discharge of injunction; permission to amend claim granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend the claim form and particulars of claim to include derivative and proprietary claims.
  • Order that sums corresponding to the client/investor balances be paid into a blocked account pending trial or further order.