FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino & Ors

FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino & Ors

The freezing order should not apply to the assets of Rubicon, Conquest, Squadra, and StileF, as there is no evidence these companies are mere wallets of Mr Ohmura or that their assets are beneficially his. The extended definition of assets does not capture company assets solely by virtue of shareholding and directorship. The 'Commercial Court words' are to be removed due to lack of evidence justifying their inclusion. The order is to be varied accordingly, but Mr Ohmura must give notice of transactions over £10,000 involving company assets, and further disclosure is ordered regarding transfers and company financials since 12 November 2015.

Parties
Claimant: FM Capital Partners Ltd; First Defendant: Frédéric Marino; Second Defendant: Aurélien Bessot; Third Defendant: Yoshiki Ohmura; Fourth Defendant: Marit Sjovaag (formerly known as Marit Sjovaag Marino)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Freezing Order Variation / Post Judgment Application for Variation and Further Disclosure
Outcome
Applications for variation of the worldwide freezing order are allowed in part and dismissed in part. Application for further disclosure is allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Corporate Veil, Disclosure Orders, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Corporate Veil Disclosure Orders Enforcement of Judgments

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FM Capital Partners Ltd

Claimant

Frédéric Marino

First Defendant

Aurélien Bessot

Second Defendant

Yoshiki Ohmura

Third Defendant

Marit Sjovaag (formerly known as Marit Sjovaag Marino)

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Freezing Order Variation / Post Judgment Application for Variation and Further Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order should apply to assets of companies owned or controlled by the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the extended definition of assets in the standard form freezing order includes assets of such companies
  3. 3 Whether further disclosure should be ordered regarding the respondent's and related companies' assets

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order should not apply to the assets of Rubicon, Conquest, Squadra, and StileF, as there is no evidence these companies are mere wallets of Mr Ohmura or that their assets are beneficially his. The extended definition of assets does not capture company assets solely by virtue of shareholding and directorship. The 'Commercial Court words' are to be removed due to lack of evidence justifying their inclusion. The order is to be varied accordingly, but Mr Ohmura must give notice of transactions over £10,000 involving company assets, and further disclosure is ordered regarding transfers and company financials since 12 November 2015.

Court Disposition

Applications for variation of the worldwide freezing order are allowed in part and dismissed in part. Application for further disclosure is allowed in part.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order varied to exclude assets of Rubicon, Conquest, Squadra, and StileF.
  • 'Commercial Court words' removed from paragraph 5 of the order.