ORB a.r.l. & Ors v Ruhan & Ors [2016] EWHC 850 (Comm) (15 April 2016)

ORB a.r.l. & Ors v Ruhan & Ors [2016] EWHC 850 (Comm) (15 April 2016)

The March Order did not lapse upon provision of the Negative Pledge because the order required actual agreement to alternative security by Mr Ruhan's legal representatives, which was neither sought nor given. The Negative Pledge did not constitute adequate security, was not enforceable by Mr Ruhan, and did not remove the risk of dissipation. The Orb Parties were in continuing breach of the March Disclosure Order. The issue of fortification for the cross-undertaking had already been determined and did not justify discharge. The application to declare the March Order lapsed or to discharge it was refused.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 850 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: ORB a.r.l.; Claimant: Roger James Taylor; Claimant: Nicholas Thomas; Defendant: Andrew Joseph Ruhan; Third Party: Simon John McNally; Fourth Party: Simon Nicholas Hope Cooper; Fifth Party: Gail Alison Cochrane; Sixth Party: Gerald Martin Smith; Seventh Party: SMA Investment Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management Conference Before Trial
Outcome
Application by Orb Parties for declaration that March Order lapsed or should be discharged refused; March Order remains in force; Orb Parties found in breach of March Disclosure Order.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Disclosure Orders, Proprietary Claims, Constructive Trust, Conspiracy to Defraud, Injunctions, Case Management, Breach of Undertakings
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Disclosure Orders Proprietary Claims Constructive Trust Conspiracy to Defraud +3 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ORB a.r.l.

Claimant

Roger James Taylor

Claimant

Nicholas Thomas

Claimant

Andrew Joseph Ruhan

Defendant

Simon John McNally

Third Party

Simon Nicholas Hope Cooper

Fourth Party

Gail Alison Cochrane

Fifth Party

Gerald Martin Smith

Sixth Party

SMA Investment Holdings Limited

Seventh Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management Conference Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the March Order (freezing and disclosure order) lapsed due to the provision of a Negative Pledge
  2. 2 Whether the Orb Parties are in breach of the March Disclosure Order
  3. 3 Adequacy of security and fortification for cross-undertaking in damages

Ratio Decidendi

The March Order did not lapse upon provision of the Negative Pledge because the order required actual agreement to alternative security by Mr Ruhan's legal representatives, which was neither sought nor given. The Negative Pledge did not constitute adequate security, was not enforceable by Mr Ruhan, and did not remove the risk of dissipation. The Orb Parties were in continuing breach of the March Disclosure Order. The issue of fortification for the cross-undertaking had already been determined and did not justify discharge. The application to declare the March Order lapsed or to discharge it was refused.

Court Disposition

Application by Orb Parties for declaration that March Order lapsed or should be discharged refused; March Order remains in force; Orb Parties found in breach of March Disclosure Order.

Orders

  • March Order (freezing and disclosure) remains in force.
  • Orb Parties to comply with March Disclosure Order.