Crowther v Crowther & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 762 (16 June 2020)

Crowther v Crowther & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 762 (16 June 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the hearing before Holman J was procedurally unfair as he had not read the evidence and did not reach a provisional view on whether Mrs Crowther had a good arguable case. On the evidence, Mrs Crowther did have a good arguable case that the 2012 arrangements were a sham and there was a real risk of dissipation of assets. However, the freezing order should be modified to allow for the sale or charging of one vessel to fund running costs and necessary repairs, balancing the need to preserve assets with the ordinary course of business.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 762
Parties
Appellant: Caroline Jill Crowther; First Respondent: Paul Anthony Crowther; Second Respondent: Steven Knight; Third Respondent: Carasol Group Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Castle Trust and Management Service Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Castle Nominees Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Castle Ship Management Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family/financial Remedy) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Beneficial Ownership, Sham Transactions, Financial Remedy Proceedings, Risk of Dissipation, Interlocutory Relief
Family Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Beneficial Ownership Sham Transactions Financial Remedy Proceedings Risk of Dissipation Interlocutory Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Jill Crowther

Appellant

Paul Anthony Crowther

First Respondent

Steven Knight

Second Respondent

Carasol Group Ltd

Third Respondent

Castle Trust and Management Service Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Castle Nominees Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Castle Ship Management Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/financial Remedy) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against the second to sixth respondents should be continued pending determination of beneficial ownership of vessels
  2. 2 Whether the hearing before Holman J was fair and whether his decision to discharge the injunction was correct
  3. 3 Whether the appellant has a good arguable case that the 2012 arrangements were a sham

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the hearing before Holman J was procedurally unfair as he had not read the evidence and did not reach a provisional view on whether Mrs Crowther had a good arguable case. On the evidence, Mrs Crowther did have a good arguable case that the 2012 arrangements were a sham and there was a real risk of dissipation of assets. However, the freezing order should be modified to allow for the sale or charging of one vessel to fund running costs and necessary repairs, balancing the need to preserve assets with the ordinary course of business.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Freezing order against the second to sixth respondents continued, but modified to permit the sale or charging of one vessel to fund running costs and repairs, with proceeds to be used for vessel maintenance and not dissipated.
  • Terms of the order set out in the schedule to the judgment.