Gallahue & Ors v Tripathi & Anor [2024] EWHC 1740 (Ch) (05 July 2024)

Gallahue & Ors v Tripathi & Anor [2024] EWHC 1740 (Ch) (05 July 2024)

The Claimants failed to establish a good arguable case that the US$1 million invested in the 2023 Series E fundraise was recoverable as a consequential loss for deceit, as neither the pleadings nor the evidence demonstrated the necessary causal connection between the earlier alleged fraud and the later investment. The freezing injunction continues at the original sum but is not increased.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1740 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Kieran Gallahue; Claimant: Mary Gallahue; Claimant: Oliver Cox; Claimant: Rachael Cox; Claimant: Oliver Cox Limited; Claimant: Karl Devine; Claimant: Michael Moore; Claimant: Vanessa Moore; Claimant: Richard Jackson; Claimant: Warren Taylor; Claimant: KAWT Investments Ltd; Claimant: Robert O'Donoghue; Claimant: Anna Allington; Claimant: Alan Howard; Claimant: Benjamin Collins; Claimant: Mark Webster; Claimant: Ross Hill; Claimant: Nick Davis; Claimant: EGCB Holdings Ltd; Claimant: DCMS Holdings Ltd; First Defendant: Akhilesh Shailendra Tripathi; Second Defendant: Silvie Kent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (continuation and Variation of Freezing Injunction) / Post Ex Parte, Inter Partes Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Claimants' application to increase the sum frozen is dismissed; freezing injunction continues at original amount until further order.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Deceit, Misrepresentation, Consequential Damages, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Fraud Equity Freezing Injunctions Deceit Misrepresentation Consequential Damages Interlocutory Relief

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kieran Gallahue

Claimant

Mary Gallahue

Claimant

Oliver Cox

Claimant

Rachael Cox

Claimant

Oliver Cox Limited

Claimant

Karl Devine

Claimant

Michael Moore

Claimant

Vanessa Moore

Claimant

Richard Jackson

Claimant

Warren Taylor

Claimant

KAWT Investments Ltd

Claimant

Robert O'Donoghue

Claimant

Anna Allington

Claimant

Alan Howard

Claimant

Benjamin Collins

Claimant

Mark Webster

Claimant

Ross Hill

Claimant

Nick Davis

Claimant

EGCB Holdings Ltd

Claimant

DCMS Holdings Ltd

Claimant

Akhilesh Shailendra Tripathi

First Defendant

Silvie Kent

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (continuation and Variation of Freezing Injunction) / Post Ex Parte, Inter Partes Return Date Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be continued
  2. 2 Whether the sum frozen should be increased by the sterling equivalent of US$1 million as consequential damages for alleged deceit

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants failed to establish a good arguable case that the US$1 million invested in the 2023 Series E fundraise was recoverable as a consequential loss for deceit, as neither the pleadings nor the evidence demonstrated the necessary causal connection between the earlier alleged fraud and the later investment. The freezing injunction continues at the original sum but is not increased.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application to increase the sum frozen is dismissed; freezing injunction continues at original amount until further order.

Orders

  • The freezing injunction (Thompsell Injunction) continues until further order.
  • Application to increase the enjoined sum by the sterling equivalent of US$1 million is dismissed.