Corallo & Ors v Pinelli & Ors [2025] EWHC 3211 (Ch) (08 December 2025)

Corallo & Ors v Pinelli & Ors [2025] EWHC 3211 (Ch) (08 December 2025)

The application for a freezing order is dismissed because, although the claimants have a good arguable case on the merits, they have failed to establish with solid evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Pinelli. The evidence shows that Mr Pinelli responded promptly and responsibly to concerns, provided undertakings, and disclosed assets, undermining the claimants' case on risk. The undertakings offered by the defendants are accepted in lieu of interim injunctions.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3211 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Francesco Corallo; Claimant/applicant: Horizon Re Limited; Claimant/applicant: Lowlands Managing Partner B. V.; Defendant/respondent: Giuseppe Pinelli; Defendant/respondent: Trading Office Limited; Defendant/respondent: Lemido Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (freezing Order and Interim Injunctions) in Civil Proceedings / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for freezing order dismissed; undertakings accepted in lieu of injunctions.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Interim Injunctions, Fiduciary Duties, Breach of Trust, Negligence, Asset Dissipation, Contractual Duties, Legal Professional Duties
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Commercial Law Freezing Orders Interim Injunctions Fiduciary Duties Breach of Trust Negligence +3 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francesco Corallo

Claimant/applicant

Horizon Re Limited

Claimant/applicant

Lowlands Managing Partner B. V.

Claimant/applicant

Giuseppe Pinelli

Defendant/respondent

Trading Office Limited

Defendant/respondent

Lemido Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (freezing Order and Interim Injunctions) in Civil Proceedings / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a good arguable case for a freezing order against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing order
  3. 3 Whether interim injunctions should be granted against the second and third defendants and the first defendant in relation to company powers

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a freezing order is dismissed because, although the claimants have a good arguable case on the merits, they have failed to establish with solid evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Pinelli. The evidence shows that Mr Pinelli responded promptly and responsibly to concerns, provided undertakings, and disclosed assets, undermining the claimants' case on risk. The undertakings offered by the defendants are accepted in lieu of interim injunctions.

Court Disposition

Application for freezing order dismissed; undertakings accepted in lieu of injunctions.

Orders

  • Application for a worldwide freezing order against Mr Pinelli is dismissed.
  • Application for interim injunctions against TOL, Lemido, and Mr Pinelli is refused; undertakings offered by the defendants are accepted.