Gable Insurance AG v Dewsall & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 884 (11 July 2025)

Gable Insurance AG v Dewsall & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 884 (11 July 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to continue a domestic freezing order against Mrs Dewsall, given the risk of dissipation, the existence of significant undisclosed assets, and the mingling of assets between Mr and Mrs Dewsall. The court found no error in the quantum of the order or the approach to proprietary claims over the proceeds of Weald Hall. The court also held that Mrs Dewsall was not entitled to fund her legal expenses from the proceeds of sale of Weald Hall while she had other non-proprietary assets (jewellery) available. The issue of forensic accountancy evidence was resolved by subsequent High Court order, and the remaining grounds of appeal were...

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 884
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Gable Insurance AG (Incorporated in Liechtenstein) (In Liquidation); First Defendant: William Dewsall; Second Defendant: Michael Hirschfield; Third Defendant and Appellant: Judith Dewsall; Fourth Defendant: Horatio Risk Consulting LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Freezing Order and Related Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (save for Ground 2, which was overtaken by events)
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders), Proprietary Claims, Asset Tracing, Interlocutory Relief, Costs Orders, Expert Evidence, Consent Orders
Civil Procedure Insolvency Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders) Proprietary Claims Asset Tracing Interlocutory Relief Costs Orders +2 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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gable Insurance AG (Incorporated in Liechtenstein) (In Liquidation)

Claimant and Respondent

William Dewsall

First Defendant

Michael Hirschfield

Second Defendant

Judith Dewsall

Third Defendant and Appellant

Horatio Risk Consulting LLP

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Freezing Order and Related Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to continue a domestic freezing order against Mrs Dewsall
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Dewsall could rely on forensic accountancy evidence at trial
  3. 3 Whether Mrs Dewsall could pay legal and personal expenses from proceeds of sale of Weald Hall

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to continue a domestic freezing order against Mrs Dewsall, given the risk of dissipation, the existence of significant undisclosed assets, and the mingling of assets between Mr and Mrs Dewsall. The court found no error in the quantum of the order or the approach to proprietary claims over the proceeds of Weald Hall. The court also held that Mrs Dewsall was not entitled to fund her legal expenses from the proceeds of sale of Weald Hall while she had other non-proprietary assets (jewellery) available. The issue of forensic accountancy evidence was resolved by subsequent High Court order, and the remaining grounds of appeal were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (save for Ground 2, which was overtaken by events)

Orders

  • Domestic freezing order against Mrs Dewsall for £15 million upheld
  • Mrs Dewsall not permitted to fund legal expenses from proceeds of Weald Hall while other assets available