Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2022] EWHC 1034 (Ch) (04 May 2022)

Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2022] EWHC 1034 (Ch) (04 May 2022)

There is a continued real risk of dissipation of assets by the Brakes, evidenced by historic and recent conduct including use of nominees, undervalue transactions, concealment and movement of assets, and unsatisfactory explanations regarding asset shortfalls. It is just and convenient to continue the freezing injunction until trial or further order, with continued disclosure obligations imposed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1034 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant (possession) / Defendant (eviction): Axnoller Events Limited; Defendant (possession) / Claimant (eviction): Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Defendant (possession) / Claimant (eviction): Andrew Young Brake; Claimant (eviction): Tom Conyers D’Arcy; Defendant (eviction): The Chedington Court Estate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction Continuation Application (post Judgment) / Post Judgment, Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued until trial or further order.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Dissipation, Disclosure Obligations, Possession Proceedings, Eviction Proceedings
Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunctions Asset Dissipation Disclosure Obligations Possession Proceedings Eviction Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Axnoller Events Limited

Claimant (possession) / Defendant (eviction)

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Defendant (possession) / Claimant (eviction)

Andrew Young Brake

Defendant (possession) / Claimant (eviction)

Tom Conyers D’Arcy

Claimant (eviction)

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Defendant (eviction)

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction Continuation Application (post Judgment) / Post Judgment, Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Brakes
  2. 2 Whether it is just and convenient to continue the freezing injunction
  3. 3 Adequacy of asset disclosure by the Brakes

Ratio Decidendi

There is a continued real risk of dissipation of assets by the Brakes, evidenced by historic and recent conduct including use of nominees, undervalue transactions, concealment and movement of assets, and unsatisfactory explanations regarding asset shortfalls. It is just and convenient to continue the freezing injunction until trial or further order, with continued disclosure obligations imposed.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued until trial or further order.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order continued against Mr and Mrs Brake and Tom D’Arcy.
  • Disclosure obligations confirmed and to be complied with by affidavit.