Thomas Anthony Civiello & Anor v Erik Brodahl

Thomas Anthony Civiello & Anor v Erik Brodahl

The claimants failed to establish good reason to suppose that the dividends and consultancy fees were held by Ultima and/or Eden Roses as nominee or trustee for Mr Brodahl, or that the EWFO extended to assets of those companies merely because of his control. The standard form freezing order wording does not extend to assets of companies solely on the basis of control, absent beneficial ownership or a sham arrangement. The application for a declaration that the EWFO covers the dividends and consultancy fees is therefore refused.

Parties
Claimant: Thomas Anthony Civiello; Claimant: Surveyspec LTE Ltd; Defendant: Erik Brodahl
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application (post Judgment) / Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Scope of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Tracing, Corporate Veil, Beneficial Ownership, Jurisdictional Limits
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Enforcement of Judgments Freezing Orders Asset Tracing Corporate Veil Beneficial Ownership Jurisdictional Limits

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Anthony Civiello

Claimant

Surveyspec LTE Ltd

Claimant

Erik Brodahl

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Application (post Judgment) / Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Scope of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dividends and consultancy fees received through or held by Mr Brodahl are his assets within the meaning of the English Worldwide Freezing Order (EWFO)
  2. 2 Whether the EWFO extends to assets held by companies controlled by Mr Brodahl
  3. 3 Whether the rights to dividends and consultancy fees are held on trust for Mr Brodahl or are subject to his control for the purposes of the EWFO

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish good reason to suppose that the dividends and consultancy fees were held by Ultima and/or Eden Roses as nominee or trustee for Mr Brodahl, or that the EWFO extended to assets of those companies merely because of his control. The standard form freezing order wording does not extend to assets of companies solely on the basis of control, absent beneficial ownership or a sham arrangement. The application for a declaration that the EWFO covers the dividends and consultancy fees is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' application for a declaration that the EWFO extends to the dividends and consultancy fees is refused.