FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino & Ors [2018] EWHC 2889 (Comm) (31 October 2018)

FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino & Ors [2018] EWHC 2889 (Comm) (31 October 2018)

The worldwide freezing order must be varied to exclude assets of companies wholly owned or controlled by Mr Ohmura, as there is no evidence these companies are mere wallets or pockets of the respondent, nor that their assets are legally or beneficially his. The extended definition does not apply to corporate assets where control is exercised as an organ or agent of the company. References to trust assets and the Swiss property are also to be removed due to lack of evidence of beneficial ownership or retained interest.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2889 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: FM Capital Partners Ltd; Defendant: Frédéric Marino; Defendant: Aurélien Bessot; Third Defendant: Yoshiki Ohmura; Defendant: Marit Sjovaag (formerly known as Marit Sjovaag Marino)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Variation of Worldwide Freezing Order / Post Judgment, Application for Variation and Further Disclosure
Outcome
Application for variation granted in part; worldwide freezing order varied as specified.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Corporate Asset Control, Variation of Injunctions, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Corporate Asset Control Variation of Injunctions 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FM Capital Partners Ltd

Claimant

Frédéric Marino

Defendant

Aurélien Bessot

Defendant

Yoshiki Ohmura

Third Defendant

Marit Sjovaag (formerly known as Marit Sjovaag Marino)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Variation of Worldwide Freezing Order / Post Judgment, Application for Variation and Further Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order should apply to assets of companies wholly owned or controlled by the respondent
  2. 2 Interpretation of extended definition of assets in freezing orders
  3. 3 Whether references to corporate assets and trust assets should be removed from the order

Ratio Decidendi

The worldwide freezing order must be varied to exclude assets of companies wholly owned or controlled by Mr Ohmura, as there is no evidence these companies are mere wallets or pockets of the respondent, nor that their assets are legally or beneficially his. The extended definition does not apply to corporate assets where control is exercised as an organ or agent of the company. References to trust assets and the Swiss property are also to be removed due to lack of evidence of beneficial ownership or retained interest.

Court Disposition

Application for variation granted in part; worldwide freezing order varied as specified.

Orders

  • References to corporate assets in paragraphs 6(2)(b), (c), (d) and 6(5) removed.
  • Reference to body corporate in paragraph 5 removed.