Chorus Group v Berner (BVI) Ltd & Anor

Chorus Group v Berner (BVI) Ltd & Anor

There was no material non-disclosure by Chorus that would justify discharge of the injunction. The respondents' conduct, offshore incorporation, single-purpose vehicle structure, and evasiveness establish a real risk of dissipation, warranting continuation of the freezing injunction. The sum frozen is set at £1.4 million, not £2 million.

Parties
Claimant: Chorus Group Limited; Defendant: Berner (BVI) Ltd; Defendant: JJW Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Continuation and Variation of Freezing Injunction, Summary Judgment, and Discharge Application
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued and varied; summary judgment granted on cheque; sum frozen set at £1.4 million.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Summary Judgment, Non Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Settlement Agreement, Adjudication
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunction Summary Judgment Non Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Settlement Agreement Adjudication

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chorus Group Limited

Claimant

Berner (BVI) Ltd

Defendant

JJW Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Continuation and Variation of Freezing Injunction, Summary Judgment, and Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the unpaid cheque

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material non-disclosure by Chorus that would justify discharge of the injunction. The respondents' conduct, offshore incorporation, single-purpose vehicle structure, and evasiveness establish a real risk of dissipation, warranting continuation of the freezing injunction. The sum frozen is set at £1.4 million, not £2 million.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued and varied; summary judgment granted on cheque; sum frozen set at £1.4 million.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction continued against respondents.
  • Sum frozen set at £1.4 million.