Njord Partners SMA-Seal LP & Ors v Astir Maritime Ltd & Ors

Njord Partners SMA-Seal LP & Ors v Astir Maritime Ltd & Ors

There was no material non-disclosure regarding Mr Ali's involvement or the electronic signatures, but there was a material non-disclosure concerning repayments reducing the quantum. The non-disclosure was not deliberate and did not affect the grounds for granting the freezing order. The risk of dissipation was established. The freezing order should be continued but with a reduced maximum value reflecting repayments.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Njord Partners SMA-Seal LP; Claimant/respondent: NPSSF Debt Co SÀRL; Claimant/respondent: AIE III Investments, LP; Claimant/respondent: Nordic Trustee AS; Defendant: Astir Maritime Limited; Defendant: Muhammad Tahir Lakhani; Defendant/applicant: Muhammad Ali Lakhani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Ruling on Application to Discharge World Wide Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to discharge the world-wide freezing order denied; order varied and continued with reduced maximum value.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Full and Frank Disclosure, Deceit, Facility Agreements, Risk of Dissipation
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Full and Frank Disclosure Deceit Facility Agreements Risk of Dissipation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Njord Partners SMA-Seal LP

Claimant/respondent

NPSSF Debt Co SÀRL

Claimant/respondent

AIE III Investments, LP

Claimant/respondent

Nordic Trustee AS

Claimant/respondent

Astir Maritime Limited

Defendant

Muhammad Tahir Lakhani

Defendant

Muhammad Ali Lakhani

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Ruling on Application to Discharge World Wide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure when seeking a world-wide freezing order
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation justifying continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Quantum of claim in light of repayments

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material non-disclosure regarding Mr Ali's involvement or the electronic signatures, but there was a material non-disclosure concerning repayments reducing the quantum. The non-disclosure was not deliberate and did not affect the grounds for granting the freezing order. The risk of dissipation was established. The freezing order should be continued but with a reduced maximum value reflecting repayments.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the world-wide freezing order denied; order varied and continued with reduced maximum value.

Orders

  • WWFO continued against Mr Ali with reduced maximum value of $22,000,000.
  • Mr Tahir and Mr Ali to disclose sources of funding for living and legal expenses within ten days.