London Partners Capital Management LLP v Utkan & Ors [2021] EWHC 423 (Comm) (23 February 2021)

London Partners Capital Management LLP v Utkan & Ors [2021] EWHC 423 (Comm) (23 February 2021)

The court granted the search and imaging order against the first and second defendants because the conditions for such an order were satisfied: there was a strong prima facie case, a real risk of destruction of evidence, and the order was proportionate and necessary to preserve evidence and police the freezing order. The order was refused against the third defendant due to insufficient evidence of risk of destruction by her.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 423 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: London Partners Capital Management LLP; Defendant/respondent: Umut Utkan; Defendant/respondent: Thompson Crosby & Co Limited; Defendant/respondent: Alina Roxana Moise
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (search and Imaging Order) / Interlocutory Application, Without Notice, Pre Trial
Outcome
Search and imaging order granted in part
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Freezing Injunctions, Preservation of Evidence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Asset Tracing
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Search Orders Freezing Injunctions Preservation of Evidence Breach of Fiduciary Duty Asset Tracing

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Partners Capital Management LLP

Claimant/applicant

Umut Utkan

Defendant/respondent

Thompson Crosby & Co Limited

Defendant/respondent

Alina Roxana Moise

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (search and Imaging Order) / Interlocutory Application, Without Notice, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions for granting a search and imaging order are satisfied
  2. 2 Whether the order should be made against all defendants or limited to some
  3. 3 Whether the order is proportionate and necessary to preserve evidence and police the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the search and imaging order against the first and second defendants because the conditions for such an order were satisfied: there was a strong prima facie case, a real risk of destruction of evidence, and the order was proportionate and necessary to preserve evidence and police the freezing order. The order was refused against the third defendant due to insufficient evidence of risk of destruction by her.

Court Disposition

Search and imaging order granted in part

Orders

  • Search and imaging order made against first and second defendants for specified premises and devices;
  • Order refused against third defendant;