Crowther v Crowther & Ors

Crowther v Crowther & Ors

The Court of Appeal found the hearing before Holman J was procedurally unfair as the judge had not read the evidence and did not properly consider whether Mrs Crowther had a good arguable case. The Court held Mrs Crowther did have a good arguable case that the 2012 arrangements were a sham and that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets. However, the freezing order should be continued only on terms that allow the second to sixth respondents to sell or charge one vessel to pay for running costs and maintenance, with safeguards for transparency and accountability.

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; Seventh Respondent: Maritime Atlantic Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/financial Remedy) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal; Determination of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; freezing order continued with modifications
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Financial Remedies on Divorce, Beneficial Ownership, Asset Dissipation, Sham Transactions, Tax Evasion Allegations
Family Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Financial Remedies on Divorce Beneficial Ownership Asset Dissipation Sham Transactions Tax Evasion Allegations

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 3 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

Maritime Atlantic Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/financial Remedy) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal; Determination of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2012 arrangements transferring vessel ownership were a sham to conceal assets and evade tax
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case for a freezing order against the second to sixth respondents
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found the hearing before Holman J was procedurally unfair as the judge had not read the evidence and did not properly consider whether Mrs Crowther had a good arguable case. The Court held Mrs Crowther did have a good arguable case that the 2012 arrangements were a sham and that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets. However, the freezing order should be continued only on terms that allow the second to sixth respondents to sell or charge one vessel to pay for running costs and maintenance, with safeguards for transparency and accountability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; freezing order continued with modifications

Orders

  • Freezing order against second to sixth respondents continued, but modified to allow sale or charging of one vessel (excluding Atlantic Discovery) or multiple vessels up to the value of the most valuable vessel, with proceeds to be used only for running costs, repairs, and maintenance, subject to monthly accounting...
  • Second to sixth respondents must provide details of any proposed sale or charge and serve all relevant contracts and records on the appellant.