Al-Rawas v Pegasus Energy Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 268 (30 March 2007)

Al-Rawas v Pegasus Energy Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 268 (30 March 2007)

The orders were discharged because the claimant failed to establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case, there was no real risk of destruction of documents or dissipation of assets, and there was material non-disclosure by the claimant regarding her knowledge of the loans, which was serious and justified setting aside the orders.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 268
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Iman Said Abdul Aziz Al-Rawas; Defendants/respondents: Pegasus Energy Limited and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Discharge of Search and Seizure and Freezing Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; orders of Ramsey J. discharging the search and seizure and freezing orders upheld.
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure Orders, Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure Obligations, Shareholder Rights, Jurisdiction Under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Material Non Disclosure, Conspiracy to Injure
Civil Procedure Company Law Private International Law Search and Seizure Orders Freezing Injunctions Disclosure Obligations Shareholder Rights Jurisdiction Under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iman Said Abdul Aziz Al-Rawas

Claimant/appellant

Pegasus Energy Limited and Others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Discharge of Search and Seizure and Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a sufficiently strong prima facie case to justify search and seizure and freezing orders
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of destruction of documents or dissipation of assets
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant warranting discharge of the orders

Ratio Decidendi

The orders were discharged because the claimant failed to establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case, there was no real risk of destruction of documents or dissipation of assets, and there was material non-disclosure by the claimant regarding her knowledge of the loans, which was serious and justified setting aside the orders.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; orders of Ramsey J. discharging the search and seizure and freezing orders upheld.

Orders

  • Search and seizure order discharged
  • Worldwide freezing order discharged