Francesco Corallo & Ors v Giuseppe Pinelli & Ors

Francesco Corallo & Ors v Giuseppe Pinelli & Ors

The application for a freezing order was dismissed because the claimants failed to demonstrate with solid evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Pinelli. The claims were based on negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, not fraud, and Mr Pinelli had voluntarily accounted for assets and complied with undertakings. The quantum of the claim was not sufficiently established to justify the order sought.

Parties
Claimant: Francesco Corallo; Claimant: Horizon Re Limited; Claimant: Lowlands Managing Partner B.V.; Defendant: Giuseppe Pinelli; Defendant: Trading Office Limited; Defendant: Lemido Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Freezing Order and Injunctions
Outcome
Application for freezing order dismissed; undertakings accepted in lieu of injunctions.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Interim Injunctions, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Trusts and Fiduciary Law Contract Law Freezing Orders Interim Injunctions Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Contract Negligence +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francesco Corallo

Claimant

Horizon Re Limited

Claimant

Lowlands Managing Partner B.V.

Claimant

Giuseppe Pinelli

Defendant

Trading Office Limited

Defendant

Lemido Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Freezing Order and Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a good arguable case for a freezing order against Mr Pinelli
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Pinelli
  3. 3 Whether interim injunctions should be granted against TOL, Lemido, and Mr Pinelli

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a freezing order was dismissed because the claimants failed to demonstrate with solid evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Pinelli. The claims were based on negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, not fraud, and Mr Pinelli had voluntarily accounted for assets and complied with undertakings. The quantum of the claim was not sufficiently established to justify the order sought.

Court Disposition

Application for freezing order dismissed; undertakings accepted in lieu of injunctions.

Orders

  • Application for worldwide freezing order against Mr Pinelli dismissed.
  • Application for interim injunctions against TOL, Lemido, and Mr Pinelli dismissed; undertakings offered by respondents accepted.