Kieran Gallahue & Ors v Akhilesh Shailendra Tripathi & Anor

Kieran Gallahue & Ors v Akhilesh Shailendra Tripathi & Anor

The claimants failed to establish a good arguable case that the US$1 million Series E investment was recoverable as either a direct or consequential loss resulting from the alleged deceit. The pleadings and evidence did not show that the Series E investment was induced by or causally connected to the alleged misrepresentations. The freezing injunction continues, but the application to increase the enjoined sum is dismissed.

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
07 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Fraud / Interlocutory Application for Continuation and Variation of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Claimants' application to increase the enjoined sum dismissed; freezing injunction continued until further order.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation, Damages, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunctions Fraud Deceit Misrepresentation Damages +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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

Civil Commercial Fraud / Interlocutory Application for Continuation and Variation of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be continued
  2. 2 Whether the amount frozen should be increased to include the sterling equivalent of US$1 million invested in 2023
  3. 3 Whether claimants have a good arguable case for damages in respect of the Series E investment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a good arguable case that the US$1 million Series E investment was recoverable as either a direct or consequential loss resulting from the alleged deceit. The pleadings and evidence did not show that the Series E investment was induced by or causally connected to the alleged misrepresentations. The freezing injunction continues, but the application to increase the enjoined sum is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application to increase the enjoined sum dismissed; freezing injunction continued until further order.

Orders

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