Berezovsky v Wah

Berezovsky v Wah

Gray J made no error in refusing to vary the condition as the defendant failed to provide adequate evidence that the sum imposed was stifling; mere assertion was insufficient.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Boris Abramovitch Berezovsky; Claimant/respondent: Vignal Limited; Defendant/appellant: Fung Hing Wah (also known as Peter Fung)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Conditional Leave to Defend, Freezing Order, Contempt of Court, Variation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Fraud Conditional Leave to Defend Freezing Order Contempt of Court Variation of Court Orders

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boris Abramovitch Berezovsky

Claimant/respondent

Vignal Limited

Claimant/respondent

Fung Hing Wah (also known as Peter Fung)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the condition imposed by Gray J requiring payment of $2.5 million into court was stifling and should be varied
  2. 2 Whether Gray J erred in refusing to vary the condition to $1.2 million
  3. 3 Whether the defendant provided sufficient evidence that the sum imposed was stifling

Ratio Decidendi

Gray J made no error in refusing to vary the condition as the defendant failed to provide adequate evidence that the sum imposed was stifling; mere assertion was insufficient.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • no order for costs