Segulah Medical Acceleration AB & Ors v Tripathi & Anor [2025] EWHC 632 (Ch) (21 March 2025)

Segulah Medical Acceleration AB & Ors v Tripathi & Anor [2025] EWHC 632 (Ch) (21 March 2025)

The BVI injunction obtained by the claimants was not enforcement of the English WFOs nor an order of a similar nature to enforcement, as the BVI court exercised its own statutory jurisdiction and the relief was not dependent on the English orders. The claimants did not breach the non-enforcement undertaking. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 632 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: SEGULAH MEDICAL ACCELERATION AB; Claimant: SPEECA LIMITED; Claimant: CHRIS TUOHY; Claimant: KIERAN GALLAHUE; Claimant: MARY GALLAHUE; Defendant: AKHILESH SHAILENDRA TRIPATHI; Defendant: SILVIE KENT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Worldwide Freezing Orders and Related Relief
Outcome
Applications by Professor Tripathi dismissed; claimants' applications granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Disclosure Orders, Non Enforcement Undertakings, Tracing of Assets, Collateral Use of Documents, Corporate Veil, Asset Dissipation
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Company Law Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Disclosure Orders Non Enforcement Undertakings Tracing of Assets +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SEGULAH MEDICAL ACCELERATION AB

Claimant

SPEECA LIMITED

Claimant

CHRIS TUOHY

Claimant

KIERAN GALLAHUE

Claimant

MARY GALLAHUE

Claimant

AKHILESH SHAILENDRA TRIPATHI

Defendant

SILVIE KENT

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Worldwide Freezing Orders and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing orders (WFOs) extend to assets held by companies controlled by the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the claimants breached a non-enforcement undertaking by seeking a BVI injunction
  3. 3 Whether the BVI injunction was 'similar' to enforcement of the English WFOs

Ratio Decidendi

The BVI injunction obtained by the claimants was not enforcement of the English WFOs nor an order of a similar nature to enforcement, as the BVI court exercised its own statutory jurisdiction and the relief was not dependent on the English orders. The claimants did not breach the non-enforcement undertaking. The Property held by JJE is not a 'Respondent's asset' under the WFOs and does not provide headroom for the defendant. There was no material failure of full and frank disclosure by the claimants in their application for collateral use.

Court Disposition

Applications by Professor Tripathi dismissed; claimants' applications granted.

Orders

  • The Set Aside Application by Professor Tripathi is dismissed.
  • Permission for collateral use of documents by the claimants is upheld.