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 and the corporate Respondents were used to dissipate assets and avoid satisfaction of the judgment. The evidence supported an inference of dishonesty and risk of dissipation. The Chabra jurisdiction applied, justifying freezing orders against the third-party companies. The freezing order was proportionate and necessary to prevent frustration of the judgment. There was no material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the injunction.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 560 (QB)
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 Application for Freezing Injunction / Hearing of Application to Continue or Discharge Post Judgment Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to continue freezing order granted; application to discharge refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Dissipation, Corporate Veil / Alter Ego, Post Judgment Relief, Full and Frank Disclosure, Transactions at Undervalue
Civil Procedure Insolvency Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Asset Dissipation Corporate Veil / Alter Ego Post Judgment Relief 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 15
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 Application for Freezing Injunction / Hearing of Application to Continue or Discharge Post Judgment Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be continued against the Respondents post-judgment
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Respondents
  3. 3 Whether the Chabra jurisdiction applies to join third parties to the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a good arguable case that Mr. Anderson and the corporate Respondents were used to dissipate assets and avoid satisfaction of the judgment. The evidence supported an inference of dishonesty and risk of dissipation. The Chabra jurisdiction applied, justifying freezing orders against the third-party companies. The freezing order was proportionate and necessary to prevent frustration of the judgment. There was no material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application to continue freezing order granted; application to discharge refused.

Orders

  • Continuation of the freezing order against all Respondents up to £4,500,000.
  • Specific assets restrained include property at 1 St. John's Place, Edinburgh; goodwill, property and assets of the business known as 'Naturastudios'; Veinaway and Naturastudios trademarks; assets of Naturastudios Limited, Natura Academy Limited, Natura Group Limited, Naturahealth Limited, and any interest held by...