Garofalo v Crisp & Ors [2024] EWHC 1737 (Ch) (05 July 2024)

Garofalo v Crisp & Ors [2024] EWHC 1737 (Ch) (05 July 2024)

There is a strong prima facie case that Mr Crisp knowingly breached UK sanctions, the Relationship Agreement, and his fiduciary duties by causing the companies to trade with Russia and concealing this from Mr Garofalo. The risk to the companies' reputation and viability justified exceptional interim relief, including removal of Mr Crisp as director and ancillary orders. The urgency and risk of evidence destruction justified ex parte relief. Other allegations (furlough fraud, product safety, IPR) raise serious issues but do not independently justify the relief at this stage.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1737 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/petitioner: David Victor Garofalo; First Respondent: David Crisp; Second Respondent: Yulia Crisp; Third Respondent: Valorem Holdings Limited; Fourth Respondent: Valorem Capital One Limited; Fifth Respondent: Valorem Distribution Limited; Sixth Respondent: Valorem Bespoke Limited; Seventh Respondent: CP Parfums Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Interim Application Ancillary to Unfair Prejudice Petition (companies Act 2006 S.994) / Interim Relief (return Date on Ex Parte Injunction)
Outcome
Interim injunction and ancillary orders continued; Mr Crisp removed as director pending trial; ancillary orders (imaging, delivery up, passport, exclusion) maintained until further order.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Director Removal, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Interim Injunctions, Sanctions Compliance, Ancillary Relief
Company Law Insolvency Sanctions Law Unfair Prejudice Director Removal Breach of Fiduciary Duty Interim Injunctions Sanctions Compliance +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Victor Garofalo

Applicant/petitioner

David Crisp

First Respondent

Yulia Crisp

Second Respondent

Valorem Holdings Limited

Third Respondent

Valorem Capital One Limited

Fourth Respondent

Valorem Distribution Limited

Fifth Respondent

Valorem Bespoke Limited

Sixth Respondent

CP Parfums Limited

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Application Ancillary to Unfair Prejudice Petition (companies Act 2006 S.994) / Interim Relief (return Date on Ex Parte Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Crisp breached UK sanctions and fiduciary duties by causing companies to trade with Russia
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for interim injunctive relief (including removal of director and ancillary orders) is met
  3. 3 Whether ex parte (without notice) relief was justified

Ratio Decidendi

There is a strong prima facie case that Mr Crisp knowingly breached UK sanctions, the Relationship Agreement, and his fiduciary duties by causing the companies to trade with Russia and concealing this from Mr Garofalo. The risk to the companies' reputation and viability justified exceptional interim relief, including removal of Mr Crisp as director and ancillary orders. The urgency and risk of evidence destruction justified ex parte relief. Other allegations (furlough fraud, product safety, IPR) raise serious issues but do not independently justify the relief at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction and ancillary orders continued; Mr Crisp removed as director pending trial; ancillary orders (imaging, delivery up, passport, exclusion) maintained until further order.

Orders

  • Continuation of interim injunction removing Mr Crisp as director and installing new management
  • Continuation of imaging order over Mr and Mrs Crisp's electronic devices and accounts