Cherney & Ors v Neuman & Ors [2009] EWHC 1743 (Ch) (22 July 2009)

Cherney & Ors v Neuman & Ors [2009] EWHC 1743 (Ch) (22 July 2009)

Claimants have a good arguable proprietary claim for £4m (Thornley Claim) and £1m (Draycott Claim) against Mr Neuman, but delay in making the application and lack of solid evidence of risk of dissipation mean that a freezing injunction is not justified; proprietary relief and an order for account are appropriate for the sums claimed.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1743 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Cherney; Claimant: Paradiso Foundation; Claimant: Vida Foundation; Claimant: Lusaka Trust; Claimant: Gwenberry Investments Limited; Defendant: Frank Neuman; Defendant: East West Building Consultants Limited; Defendant: Draycott Property Management Limited; Defendant: Pettman Smith (A firm); Defendant: Child & Child (A firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application for Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions
Outcome
Freezing injunction refused; proprietary injunction and order for account granted for specific sums.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Claims, Fiduciary Duties, Risk of Dissipation, Delay in Injunction Applications
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Claims Fiduciary Duties Risk of Dissipation Delay in Injunction Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Cherney

Claimant

Paradiso Foundation

Claimant

Vida Foundation

Claimant

Lusaka Trust

Claimant

Gwenberry Investments Limited

Claimant

Frank Neuman

Defendant

East West Building Consultants Limited

Defendant

Draycott Property Management Limited

Defendant

Pettman Smith (A firm)

Defendant

Child & Child (A firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application for Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a good arguable proprietary claim against Mr Neuman for sums received in connection with property transactions
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the application defeats the claim for injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants have a good arguable proprietary claim for £4m (Thornley Claim) and £1m (Draycott Claim) against Mr Neuman, but delay in making the application and lack of solid evidence of risk of dissipation mean that a freezing injunction is not justified; proprietary relief and an order for account are appropriate for the sums claimed.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction refused; proprietary injunction and order for account granted for specific sums.

Orders

  • Proprietary injunction granted for £4m Thornley Claim and £1m Draycott Claim against Mr Neuman
  • Order for account by Mr Neuman regarding refurbishment funds