4VVV Limited & Ors v Nicholas Spence & Ors

4VVV Limited & Ors v Nicholas Spence & Ors

The claimants have demonstrated a realistically arguable case on the merits against the first and third defendants, and a real risk of dissipation of assets has been established. There was no material non-disclosure or unfair presentation by the claimants sufficient to warrant discharge of the freezing order. The Chabra application succeeds as there is a realistically arguable case that the XIP companies hold assets as nominees for the third defendant or that transfers to them may be avoided under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986. The application for further fortification of the cross-undertaking by the third defendant fails for lack of sufficient evidence.

Parties
Claimants: 4VVV Limited and others; First Defendant: Nicholas Spence; Second Defendant: Derek Kewley; Third Defendant: Andrew Crump; Fourth Defendant: Emerging Property Investments Limited (in liquidation); Fifth Defendant: Emerging Property Limited; Sixth Defendant: Green Parks Holdings (Ilfracombe) Limited; Eighth Defendant: GP Ilfracombe Management Company Ltd; Ninth Defendant: Green Parks (Westward Ho!) Management Company Limited; Tenth Defendant: Alpha Properties (Bradford) Limited; Eleventh Defendant: A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud / Freezing Order Applications / Interlocutory Applications: Discharge of Worldwide Freezing Order, Fortification of Cross Undertaking, and Chabra Relief
Outcome
Applications by the first and third defendants to discharge the freezing order are dismissed; the Chabra application succeeds; the application for further fortification of the cross-undertaking is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders (wfo), Chabra Relief, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Material Non Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Ponzi Schemes, Misrepresentation, Asset Tracing
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud Freezing Orders (wfo) Chabra Relief Cross Undertaking in Damages Material Non Disclosure Risk of Dissipation +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

4VVV Limited and others

Claimants

Nicholas Spence

First Defendant

Derek Kewley

Second Defendant

Andrew Crump

Third Defendant

Emerging Property Investments Limited (in liquidation)

Fourth Defendant

Emerging Property Limited

Fifth Defendant

Green Parks Holdings (Ilfracombe) Limited

Sixth Defendant

GP Ilfracombe Management Company Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Green Parks (Westward Ho!) Management Company Limited

Ninth Defendant

Alpha Properties (Bradford) Limited

Tenth Defendant

A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud / Freezing Order Applications / Interlocutory Applications: Discharge of Worldwide Freezing Order, Fortification of Cross Undertaking, and Chabra Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order (WFO) against the first and third defendants should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have shown a good arguable case on the merits and a real risk of dissipation
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimants at the without notice stage

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have demonstrated a realistically arguable case on the merits against the first and third defendants, and a real risk of dissipation of assets has been established. There was no material non-disclosure or unfair presentation by the claimants sufficient to warrant discharge of the freezing order. The Chabra application succeeds as there is a realistically arguable case that the XIP companies hold assets as nominees for the third defendant or that transfers to them may be avoided under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986. The application for further fortification of the cross-undertaking by the third defendant fails for lack of sufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Applications by the first and third defendants to discharge the freezing order are dismissed; the Chabra application succeeds; the application for further fortification of the cross-undertaking is dismissed.

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing order is continued against the first and third defendants.
  • Chabra relief is granted against the XIP companies; they are joined as respondents to the freezing order.