Paylor v Bowers & Ors

Paylor v Bowers & Ors

The Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was no prima facie case of fraudulent wrongdoing, that the sums secured were excessive, or that there was material nondisclosure by the Claimants. The Claimants had made sufficient disclosure and the WFOs were not oppressive. No grounds were established for discharging, setting aside, varying, or staying the WFOs, nor for setting aside or varying the cost orders.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Edmund Paylor; Claimant/respondent: Stephen Richard Penn; Claimant/respondent: Proximity Ventures Limited (in liquidation); Claimant/respondent: GFI Consultants Ltd (in liquidation); Defendant/applicant: Junie Conrad Omari Bowers; Defendant/applicant: Andrew Nathaniel Skeene; Defendant/applicant: Michelle Louise Windebank; Non Cause of Action Defendant: Intrinsbit Capital Ltd; Non Cause of Action Defendant: Sergey Buravlev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Insolvency/fraud / Interlocutory Application to Discharge, Set Aside, Vary And/or Stay Worldwide Freezing Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Orders, Full and Frank Disclosure, Fraudulent Misappropriation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Valuation of Assets, Costs Orders
Insolvency Fraud Civil Procedure Worldwide Freezing Orders Full and Frank Disclosure Fraudulent Misappropriation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Valuation of Assets +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Edmund Paylor

Claimant/respondent

Stephen Richard Penn

Claimant/respondent

Proximity Ventures Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant/respondent

GFI Consultants Ltd (in liquidation)

Claimant/respondent

Junie Conrad Omari Bowers

Defendant/applicant

Andrew Nathaniel Skeene

Defendant/applicant

Michelle Louise Windebank

Defendant/applicant

Intrinsbit Capital Ltd

Non Cause of Action Defendant

Sergey Buravlev

Non Cause of Action Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Insolvency/fraud / Interlocutory Application to Discharge, Set Aside, Vary And/or Stay Worldwide Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing orders (WFOs) should be discharged, set aside, varied or stayed
  2. 2 Whether the claimants failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure when obtaining the WFOs
  3. 3 Whether the WFOs are oppressive or excessive in scope or amount

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was no prima facie case of fraudulent wrongdoing, that the sums secured were excessive, or that there was material nondisclosure by the Claimants. The Claimants had made sufficient disclosure and the WFOs were not oppressive. No grounds were established for discharging, setting aside, varying, or staying the WFOs, nor for setting aside or varying the cost orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • All applications to discharge, set aside, vary or stay the worldwide freezing orders are refused.
  • Application to set aside or vary the cost orders of 17 May 2018 is refused.