Berezovsky v Wah [2005] EWCA Civ 428 (08 April 2005)

Berezovsky v Wah [2005] EWCA Civ 428 (08 April 2005)

The defendant failed to provide adequate evidence that the $2.5 million condition was stifling. The judge made no error in refusing to vary the condition, as the defendant's explanations were insufficient and lacked detail. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 428
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Boris Abramovitch Berezovsky; Claimant/respondent: Vignal Limited; Defendant/appellant: Fung Hing Wah (also known as Peter Fung)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Conditional Leave to Defend, Debarring Orders, Summary Judgment, Variation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Fraud Freezing Orders Conditional Leave to Defend Debarring Orders Summary Judgment Variation of Court Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boris Abramovitch Berezovsky

Claimant/respondent

Vignal Limited

Claimant/respondent

Fung Hing Wah (also known as Peter Fung)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the condition to pay $2.5 million into court as a prerequisite to defend was stifling and should be varied
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to vary the condition imposed for leave to defend

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide adequate evidence that the $2.5 million condition was stifling. The judge made no error in refusing to vary the condition, as the defendant's explanations were insufficient and lacked detail. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order for costs