Circumference Investments (Europe) Ltd v Martin (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 2691 (Ch) (01 October 2021)

Circumference Investments (Europe) Ltd v Martin (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 2691 (Ch) (01 October 2021)

The Defendant did not breach the Ambrose Order as the Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding false information and ultimate beneficiary. Payments made by the Defendant's wife were not proven to be made on his behalf. The court granted relief to allow access to frozen funds for living and legal expenses, finding it just and convenient, and ordered further information to be provided regarding outstanding questions about assets.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2691 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Circumference Investments (Europe) Limited; Claimant / Respondent: Circumference (Luxembourg) SARL; Claimant / Respondent: Circumference Holdings Ltd; Defendant / Applicant: Nicholas James Martin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Chancery Litigation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Freezing Orders and Unless Order
Outcome
Application granted in part; Defendant permitted access to frozen funds for living and legal expenses; no breach of Ambrose Order found.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Disclosure Obligations, Variation of Foreign Court Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Relief From Sanctions Disclosure Obligations Variation of Foreign 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Circumference Investments (Europe) Limited

Claimant / Respondent

Circumference (Luxembourg) SARL

Claimant / Respondent

Circumference Holdings Ltd

Claimant / Respondent

Nicholas James Martin

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Chancery Litigation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Freezing Orders and Unless Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached the Ambrose 'unless' order
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is entitled to relief from sanctions
  3. 3 Whether the court should mandate variation of the Luxembourg freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant did not breach the Ambrose Order as the Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding false information and ultimate beneficiary. Payments made by the Defendant's wife were not proven to be made on his behalf. The court granted relief to allow access to frozen funds for living and legal expenses, finding it just and convenient, and ordered further information to be provided regarding outstanding questions about assets.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; Defendant permitted access to frozen funds for living and legal expenses; no breach of Ambrose Order found.

Orders

  • Claimants to join Defendant in requesting variation of Luxembourg Order to permit access to funds for living and legal expenses.
  • Defendant permitted access to French Property proceeds within Bacon Order terms.