Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v Andrew Joseph Ruhan & Anor

Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v Andrew Joseph Ruhan & Anor

There is no evidence of a real risk of prosecution under Italian criminal law for compliance with the McCloud Order, and compliance would not constitute an offence under Articles 615-ter or 622. The balancing exercise strongly favours enforcement of the order, given the importance of the documents to judgment enforcement and absence of any substantive countervailing considerations. The application to discharge or stay the order fails.

Parties
Claimant: Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (in Liquidation); Claimant: Elizabeth Alexandra Aird-Brown (as Liquidator of Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited); Defendant: Andrew Joseph Ruhan; Defendant: Anthony Edward Stevens; Interested Party: Phoenix Group Foundation; Interested Party: Minardi Investments Limited; Interested Party: Tania Jane Richardson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Enforcement Proceedings (cpr Part 71) / Application to Discharge/stay Disclosure Order
Outcome
Application to discharge or stay the McCloud Order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Orders, Foreign Criminal Law, Enforcement of Judgments, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure International Law Conflict of Laws Disclosure Orders Foreign Criminal Law Enforcement of Judgments Abuse of Process

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

Parties

Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (in Liquidation)

Claimant

Elizabeth Alexandra Aird-Brown (as Liquidator of Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited)

Claimant

Andrew Joseph Ruhan

Defendant

Anthony Edward Stevens

Defendant

Phoenix Group Foundation

Interested Party

Minardi Investments Limited

Interested Party

Tania Jane Richardson

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Enforcement Proceedings (cpr Part 71) / Application to Discharge/stay Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compliance with the McCloud Order would expose Mr Stevens and the IT consultant to criminal liability in Italy under Articles 615-ter and 622 of the Italian Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of prosecution in Italy for compliance with the order
  3. 3 Whether the application to discharge/stay is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence of a real risk of prosecution under Italian criminal law for compliance with the McCloud Order, and compliance would not constitute an offence under Articles 615-ter or 622. The balancing exercise strongly favours enforcement of the order, given the importance of the documents to judgment enforcement and absence of any substantive countervailing considerations. The application to discharge or stay the order fails.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge or stay the McCloud Order dismissed.

Orders

  • McCloud Order remains in force; Mr Stevens must comply with forensic imaging and search provisions as ordered.
  • No discharge or stay granted in relation to files identified in paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2) of the McCloud Order.