Civiello & Anor v Brodahl [2024] EWHC 707 (Comm) (27 March 2024)

Civiello & Anor v Brodahl [2024] EWHC 707 (Comm) (27 March 2024)

The Claimants failed to establish good reason to suppose that the dividends and consultancy fees were beneficially owned by Mr Brodahl or that he had the requisite power of control over them for the purposes of the EWFO; the assets belonged to the companies, not to Mr Brodahl, and his status as sole shareholder/director did not suffice to bring the assets within the scope of the freezing order.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 707 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Thomas Anthony Civiello; Claimant: Surveyspec LTE Ltd; Defendant: Erik Brodahl
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Declaration Regarding Scope of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Control, Beneficial Ownership, Corporate Personality, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Asset Control Beneficial Ownership Corporate Personality Enforcement of Judgments

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Anthony Civiello

Claimant

Surveyspec LTE Ltd

Claimant

Erik Brodahl

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Declaration 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 Ultima and/or Eden Roses hold assets as nominee or on trust for Mr Brodahl
  3. 3 Whether Mr Brodahl has power to dispose of or deal with the assets as if his own under the EWFO

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants failed to establish good reason to suppose that the dividends and consultancy fees were beneficially owned by Mr Brodahl or that he had the requisite power of control over them for the purposes of the EWFO; the assets belonged to the companies, not to Mr Brodahl, and his status as sole shareholder/director did not suffice to bring the assets within the scope of the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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