Wells v Chave & Ors

Wells v Chave & Ors

There is substantial evidence of dishonesty by Mr Wells and some specific evidence of a risk of dissipation of assets. Although there was material non-disclosure by Mr Chave regarding the true state of Mr Wells’ disclosure, this was not sufficient to justify refusing to continue the freezing order, given the overall context and further evidence adduced. The freezing order should be continued against Mr Wells and restricted to the Swanage Property in respect of Mrs Wells. The application for security for costs was refused due to procedural deficiencies.

Parties
Claimant and Part 20 Defendant: Clive Roger Wells; Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Philip Thomas Chave; Second Part 20 Defendant: Tina Wells
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Order and Related Relief
Outcome
Freezing order continued against Mr Wells; order against Mrs Wells restricted to the Swanage Property; application for security for costs refused; further disclosure of assets to be considered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders), Constructive Trusts, Security for Costs, Material Non Disclosure, Fraud and Dishonesty, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Property Law Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders) Constructive Trusts Security for Costs Material Non Disclosure Fraud and Dishonesty +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Roger Wells

Claimant and Part 20 Defendant

Philip Thomas Chave

Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Tina Wells

Second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Order and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against Mr and Mrs Wells should be continued until trial
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Wells
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by Mr Chave on the ex parte application

Ratio Decidendi

There is substantial evidence of dishonesty by Mr Wells and some specific evidence of a risk of dissipation of assets. Although there was material non-disclosure by Mr Chave regarding the true state of Mr Wells’ disclosure, this was not sufficient to justify refusing to continue the freezing order, given the overall context and further evidence adduced. The freezing order should be continued against Mr Wells and restricted to the Swanage Property in respect of Mrs Wells. The application for security for costs was refused due to procedural deficiencies.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued against Mr Wells; order against Mrs Wells restricted to the Swanage Property; application for security for costs refused; further disclosure of assets to be considered.

Orders

  • Continuation of freezing order against Mr Wells until trial
  • Order against Mrs Wells restricted to the Swanage Property