Gulf Air BSC(C) v One Inflight Ltd & Ors

Gulf Air BSC(C) v One Inflight Ltd & Ors

The court found a good arguable case of fraud and risk of dissipation against all relevant defendants, dismissed jurisdictional and discharge applications, and held that the freezing order and device inspection orders were necessary and proportionate given the nature of the alleged fraud and electronic evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Gulf Air B. S. C. (C); First Defendant: One Inflight Limited; Second Defendant: Mohamad El Assaad; Third Defendant: Sara Abdallah Abdala; Fourth Defendant: Amir Hirani; Fifth Defendant: Inflight Global Pte Limited; Sixth Defendant: Epcon Limited; Seventh Defendant: Global One Media Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud / Interlocutory Applications—freezing Order, Jurisdictional Challenges, Device Inspection
Outcome
applications to discharge freezing order and set aside jurisdiction dismissed; freezing order and device inspection order continued and varied
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Jurisdiction, Conspiracy to Defraud, Dishonest Assistance, Electronic Evidence, Full and Frank Disclosure
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Fraud Freezing Orders Jurisdiction Conspiracy to Defraud Dishonest Assistance Electronic Evidence +1 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulf Air B. S. C. (C)

Claimant

One Inflight Limited

First Defendant

Mohamad El Assaad

Second Defendant

Sara Abdallah Abdala

Third Defendant

Amir Hirani

Fourth Defendant

Inflight Global Pte Limited

Fifth Defendant

Epcon Limited

Sixth Defendant

Global One Media Limited

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud / Interlocutory Applications—freezing Order, Jurisdictional Challenges, Device Inspection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be discharged as against Mr Hirani, Inflight, and Epcon
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction over Inflight and Epcon
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a good arguable case of fraud and risk of dissipation against all relevant defendants, dismissed jurisdictional and discharge applications, and held that the freezing order and device inspection orders were necessary and proportionate given the nature of the alleged fraud and electronic evidence.

Court Disposition

applications to discharge freezing order and set aside jurisdiction dismissed; freezing order and device inspection order continued and varied

Orders

  • Freezing Order to remain in place against Mr Hirani, Inflight, and Epcon
  • Jurisdictional challenges by Inflight and Epcon dismissed