MEX Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors

MEX Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors

The appeal is dismissed because the claimant failed to establish that it was expedient to grant a worldwide freezing order under section 25 CJJA where the respondents had no assets or presence in England and Wales, and there was no real connecting link to the jurisdiction. Additionally, material failures of full and frank disclosure at the without notice hearing justified discharge of the order and refusal to renew it, regardless of whether the substantive requirements for a freezing order were met.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mex Group Worldwide Limited; Respondent/defendant: Stewart Owen Ford; Respondent/defendant: Brian Robert Cormack; Respondent/defendant: Colm Denis Smith; Respondent/defendant: Michael Gollits; Respondent/defendant: Melville Consulting Partners Limited; Respondent/defendant: Melville Consultancy Limited; Respondent/defendant: Regal Consultancy International Limited; Respondent/defendant: CSM Securities SARL; Respondent/defendant: Von der Heydt & Co AG; Respondent/defendant: Von der Heydt Invest SA; Respondent/defendant: Mex Securities SARL; Respondent/defendant: Viacheslav Volotovskiy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Full and Frank Disclosure, Interim Relief, Expediency, Risk of Dissipation, Good Arguable Case, Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Civil Procedure Injunctions International Civil Litigation Freezing Orders Full and Frank Disclosure Interim Relief Expediency Risk of Dissipation +2 more

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 7 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mex Group Worldwide Limited

Appellant/claimant

Stewart Owen Ford

Respondent/defendant

Brian Robert Cormack

Respondent/defendant

Colm Denis Smith

Respondent/defendant

Michael Gollits

Respondent/defendant

Melville Consulting Partners Limited

Respondent/defendant

Melville Consultancy Limited

Respondent/defendant

Regal Consultancy International Limited

Respondent/defendant

CSM Securities SARL

Respondent/defendant

Von der Heydt & Co AG

Respondent/defendant

Von der Heydt Invest SA

Respondent/defendant

Mex Securities SARL

Respondent/defendant

Viacheslav Volotovskiy

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant established a good arguable case for a worldwide freezing order under section 25 CJJA
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets by the respondents
  3. 3 Whether it was inexpedient to grant the freezing order given lack of connection to England and Wales

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the claimant failed to establish that it was expedient to grant a worldwide freezing order under section 25 CJJA where the respondents had no assets or presence in England and Wales, and there was no real connecting link to the jurisdiction. Additionally, material failures of full and frank disclosure at the without notice hearing justified discharge of the order and refusal to renew it, regardless of whether the substantive requirements for a freezing order were met.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order against respondents discharged and not renewed
  • Application to adduce new evidence allowed