4VVV Ltd & Ors v Spence & Ors [2023] EWHC 1 (Comm) (06 January 2023)

4VVV Ltd & Ors v Spence & Ors [2023] EWHC 1 (Comm) (06 January 2023)

The claimants have established a realistically arguable case of fraud and misrepresentation against the first and third defendants, supported by evidence of knowingly or recklessly false marketing, disregard of legal advice, and lack of due diligence. This, cumulatively, gives rise to a real risk of dissipation justifying continuation of the freezing order. The threshold for discharge is not met. The application for further fortification is addressed on the merits and risk, and Chabra relief is considered in light of control and asset dissipation risk.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: 4VVV Limited and Others; First Defendant: Nicholas Spence; Second Defendant: Derek Kewley; Third Defendant: Andrew Crump; Fourth Defendant: Emerging Property Investments Limited (in liquidation); Fifth Defendant: Emerging Property Limited; Sixth Defendant: Green Parks Holdings (Ilfracombe) Limited; Eighth Defendant: GP Ilfracombe Management Company Ltd; Ninth Defendant: Green Parks (Westward Ho!) Management Company Limited; Tenth Defendant: Alpha Properties (Bradford) Limited; Eleventh Defendant: A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (freezing Order and Related Relief) / Interlocutory (application to Discharge/fortify Freezing Order and for Chabra Relief)
Outcome
Applications to discharge the freezing order are dismissed. The freezing order remains in place. Further fortification and Chabra relief are addressed as per the detailed judgment.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Ponzi Schemes, Asset Dissipation, Chabra Relief, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Commercial Law Fraud Insolvency Freezing Injunctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Ponzi Schemes Asset Dissipation Chabra Relief +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

4VVV Limited and Others

Claimant

Nicholas Spence

First Defendant

Derek Kewley

Second Defendant

Andrew Crump

Third Defendant

Emerging Property Investments Limited (in liquidation)

Fourth Defendant

Emerging Property Limited

Fifth Defendant

Green Parks Holdings (Ilfracombe) Limited

Sixth Defendant

GP Ilfracombe Management Company Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Green Parks (Westward Ho!) Management Company Limited

Ninth Defendant

Alpha Properties (Bradford) Limited

Tenth Defendant

A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (freezing Order and Related Relief) / Interlocutory (application to Discharge/fortify Freezing Order and for Chabra Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order (WFO) against the first and third defendants should be discharged for lack of risk of dissipation or insufficient merits
  2. 2 Whether further fortification of the claimants' cross-undertaking in damages is required
  3. 3 Whether Chabra relief should be granted against companies controlled by the third defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have established a realistically arguable case of fraud and misrepresentation against the first and third defendants, supported by evidence of knowingly or recklessly false marketing, disregard of legal advice, and lack of due diligence. This, cumulatively, gives rise to a real risk of dissipation justifying continuation of the freezing order. The threshold for discharge is not met. The application for further fortification is addressed on the merits and risk, and Chabra relief is considered in light of control and asset dissipation risk.

Court Disposition

Applications to discharge the freezing order are dismissed. The freezing order remains in place. Further fortification and Chabra relief are addressed as per the detailed judgment.

Orders

  • Discharge applications by first and third defendants refused; freezing order continues.
  • Application for further fortification of cross-undertaking considered on merits and risk.