Garofalo v Crisp & Anor (Re Valorem Holdings Ltd) [2025] EWHC 966 (Ch) (16 April 2025)

Garofalo v Crisp & Anor (Re Valorem Holdings Ltd) [2025] EWHC 966 (Ch) (16 April 2025)

The Court held that a sufficient proprietary claim was pleaded in relation to the Seboni brand and its profits, justifying proprietary injunctive relief against both Respondents to preserve those assets pending trial. The balance of convenience and justice favoured such relief, but a freezing order was refused as unnecessary and disproportionate in light of undertakings and the proprietary injunction. Ancillary information and documentation orders were granted to the extent necessary to police the proprietary relief and to enable the new management to understand the Companies' business, but broader or duplicative orders were refused as disproportionate. Orders against the Second...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 966 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/petitioner: David Victor Garofalo; First Respondent: David Adrian Crisp; Second Respondent: Yulia Crisp
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Section 994 Companies Act 2006 Petition and Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive and Information Orders Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Proprietary Injunction, Freezing Order, Disclosure of Information, Fiduciary Duties, Constructive Trust, Interlocutory Relief
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Proprietary Injunction Freezing Order Disclosure of Information Fiduciary Duties +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Victor Garofalo

Applicant/petitioner

David Adrian Crisp

First Respondent

Yulia Crisp

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 994 Companies Act 2006 Petition and Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive and Information Orders Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary injunctive relief should be granted over profits and assets relating to the Seboni brand
  2. 2 Whether a freezing order should be granted against the First Respondent
  3. 3 Whether orders for provision of information and documentation regarding assets, bank accounts, and trading entities are justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that a sufficient proprietary claim was pleaded in relation to the Seboni brand and its profits, justifying proprietary injunctive relief against both Respondents to preserve those assets pending trial. The balance of convenience and justice favoured such relief, but a freezing order was refused as unnecessary and disproportionate in light of undertakings and the proprietary injunction. Ancillary information and documentation orders were granted to the extent necessary to police the proprietary relief and to enable the new management to understand the Companies' business, but broader or duplicative orders were refused as disproportionate. Orders against the Second...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Proprietary injunction granted over profits from Seboni brand against both Respondents
  • Ancillary information and documentation orders granted in relation to Seboni profits and ATEs, limited in scope and time