RBS Invoice Finance Ltd v Karia & Ors

RBS Invoice Finance Ltd v Karia & Ors

Although the claimant established a good arguable case for fraud and breach of trust, there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation by the defendants. The explanations provided for asset transfers and payments, as well as the defendants' local business ties and absence of evidence of overseas transfers, rebutted the inference of imminent dissipation. Therefore, the freezing order could not be continued.

Parties
Claimant: RBS Invoice Finance Limited; First Defendant: Mayus Karia; Second Defendant: RAM Recycling Limited; Third Defendant: GRITTCO Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Post Interim Freezing Order, Substantive Hearing
Outcome
freezing order discharged
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Fraud, Breach of Trust, Asset Dissipation, Factoring Agreement
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunction Fraud Breach of Trust Asset Dissipation Factoring Agreement

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RBS Invoice Finance Limited

Claimant

Mayus Karia

First Defendant

RAM Recycling Limited

Second Defendant

GRITTCO Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Post Interim Freezing Order, Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for fraud and breach of trust
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether explanations provided by defendants rebut inference of dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant established a good arguable case for fraud and breach of trust, there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation by the defendants. The explanations provided for asset transfers and payments, as well as the defendants' local business ties and absence of evidence of overseas transfers, rebutted the inference of imminent dissipation. Therefore, the freezing order could not be continued.

Court Disposition

freezing order discharged

Orders

  • The freezing order is discharged in its entirety.
  • No continuing injunction against any defendant.