Financial Services Authority v Da Vinci Invest Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2674 (Ch) (31 August 2011)

Financial Services Authority v Da Vinci Invest Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2674 (Ch) (31 August 2011)

There is a reasonable likelihood that each of the defendants will engage in market abuse if no injunction is granted, and the requirements for continuation of freezing orders under section 381(3) and (4) are satisfied based on the FSA's evidence and the lack of contrary evidence from the defendants.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2674 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Financial Services Authority; First Defendant: Da Vinci Invest Limited; Second Defendant: Da Vinci Invest PTE Limited; Third Defendant: Mineworld Limited; Fourth Defendant: Mr Banya; Fifth Defendant: Mr Brad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Continuation of Freezing Orders and Interim Injunction Until Trial
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Market Abuse, Freezing Orders, Interim Injunctions, Section 381 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Market Abuse Freezing Orders Interim Injunctions Section 381 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Financial Services Authority

Claimant

Da Vinci Invest Limited

First Defendant

Da Vinci Invest PTE Limited

Second Defendant

Mineworld Limited

Third Defendant

Mr Banya

Fourth Defendant

Mr Brad

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Continuation of Freezing Orders and Interim Injunction Until Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendants will engage in market abuse under section 381(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether freezing orders against the first, second, and third defendants should be continued until trial

Ratio Decidendi

There is a reasonable likelihood that each of the defendants will engage in market abuse if no injunction is granted, and the requirements for continuation of freezing orders under section 381(3) and (4) are satisfied based on the FSA's evidence and the lack of contrary evidence from the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Freezing orders against the first, second, and third defendants continued until trial
  • Interim injunction restraining the first to fifth defendants from engaging in market abuse until trial