Frenkel v Lyampert & Anor (No. 2)

Frenkel v Lyampert & Anor (No. 2)

The freezing injunction was discharged due to serious and significant material non-disclosure by the applicant, including failure to inform the court that similar relief had been sought and served in California, and that the application should have been made on notice. The breaches undermined the basis for granting the injunction, and there was no evidence of a real risk of dissipation justifying a without notice order. The court refused to continue or replace the injunction, finding no justification for further relief given the existence of a US injunction and the lack of risk.

Parties
Claimant: Roman Frenkel; First Defendant: Arkadiy Lyampert; Second Defendant: LA Micro Group (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction/discharge Application / Post Trial, Application to Discharge/continue Interim Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction discharged; application for further injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Full and Frank Disclosure, Chabra Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Costs, Confidentiality of Evidence
Civil Procedure Injunctions Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Full and Frank Disclosure Chabra Jurisdiction Costs +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

Roman Frenkel

Claimant

Arkadiy Lyampert

First Defendant

LA Micro Group (UK) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction/discharge Application / Post Trial, Application to Discharge/continue Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged for material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the test for a freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether the injunction should be continued or replaced

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction was discharged due to serious and significant material non-disclosure by the applicant, including failure to inform the court that similar relief had been sought and served in California, and that the application should have been made on notice. The breaches undermined the basis for granting the injunction, and there was no evidence of a real risk of dissipation justifying a without notice order. The court refused to continue or replace the injunction, finding no justification for further relief given the existence of a US injunction and the lack of risk.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged; application for further injunction dismissed

Orders

  • The freezing injunction is discharged on grounds of material non-disclosure.
  • The application to continue or replace the injunction is dismissed.