The New York Laser Clinic Ltd v Naturastudios Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 560 (QB) (09 June 2020)

The New York Laser Clinic Ltd v Naturastudios Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 560 (QB) (09 June 2020)

The court found a good arguable case that Mr. Anderson had taken steps to dissipate assets and move business from Naturastudios Limited to other entities he controlled, with the intention of avoiding satisfaction of the judgment. The evidence supported an inference of dishonesty and risk of further dissipation. The Chabra jurisdiction applied, justifying freezing orders against the other Respondents. The freezing order was proportionate and necessary to protect enforcement of the judgment, and the duty of full and frank disclosure had not been breached to a degree warranting discharge of the order.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 560
Parties
Claimant / Applicant: The New York Laser Clinic Limited; First Defendant / Respondent: Naturastudios Limited; Second Defendant / Respondent: James Henry Anderson; Third Defendant / Respondent: Natura Academy Limited; Fourth Defendant / Respondent: Natura Group Limited; Fifth Defendant / Respondent: Naturahealth Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Post Judgment Freezing Injunction Application / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte and Inter Partes Hearings
Outcome
Application granted; freezing order continued with variations
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Dissipation, Corporate Veil / Alter Ego, Post Judgment Enforcement, Full and Frank Disclosure, Transactions at Undervalue
Civil Procedure Insolvency Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Asset Dissipation Corporate Veil / Alter Ego Post Judgment Enforcement Full and Frank Disclosure +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The New York Laser Clinic Limited

Claimant / Applicant

Naturastudios Limited

First Defendant / Respondent

James Henry Anderson

Second Defendant / Respondent

Natura Academy Limited

Third Defendant / Respondent

Natura Group Limited

Fourth Defendant / Respondent

Naturahealth Limited

Fifth Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Post Judgment Freezing Injunction Application / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte and Inter Partes Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be continued against the Respondents
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the Chabra jurisdiction applies to join third parties and restrain their assets

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a good arguable case that Mr. Anderson had taken steps to dissipate assets and move business from Naturastudios Limited to other entities he controlled, with the intention of avoiding satisfaction of the judgment. The evidence supported an inference of dishonesty and risk of further dissipation. The Chabra jurisdiction applied, justifying freezing orders against the other Respondents. The freezing order was proportionate and necessary to protect enforcement of the judgment, and the duty of full and frank disclosure had not been breached to a degree warranting discharge of the order.

Court Disposition

Application granted; freezing order continued with variations

Orders

  • Continuation of the freezing order against all Respondents up to £4,500,000, restraining removal or disposal of assets within and outside England and Wales, including specified property, goodwill, and trademarks.
  • Joinder of Mr. Anderson, Natura Academy Limited, Natura Group Limited, and Naturahealth Limited as parties to the action.