Wurm & Ors v Amini & Ors [2025] EWHC 415 (Ch) (27 February 2025)

Wurm & Ors v Amini & Ors [2025] EWHC 415 (Ch) (27 February 2025)

The claimants have established a seriously arguable case that the first defendant held funds on a Quistclose trust for the claimants and misappropriated them, and that the third to fifth defendants may have dishonestly assisted or received traceable proceeds. There is a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets by the applicants, and it is just and convenient to continue the freezing order. The application to set aside the freezing order is dismissed.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 415 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Vanessa Wurm; Claimant: Rosemarie Worm; Claimant: VNESS Limited; Defendant: Kash Amini; Defendant: Maslife Limited; Defendant: Bahador Amini; Defendant: Laundry D2D Limited; Defendant: Pars DC Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Freezing Order Set Aside Application / Interim Application—judgment on Application to Set Aside Freezing Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; freezing order to continue.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Quistclose Trusts, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Risk of Dissipation, Interim Relief
Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Quistclose Trusts Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt Risk of Dissipation Interim Relief

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

Parties

Vanessa Wurm

Claimant

Rosemarie Worm

Claimant

VNESS Limited

Claimant

Kash Amini

Defendant

Maslife Limited

Defendant

Bahador Amini

Defendant

Laundry D2D Limited

Defendant

Pars DC Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Order Set Aside Application / Interim Application—judgment on Application to Set Aside Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a seriously arguable case for a Quistclose trust against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a seriously arguable case for dishonest assistance or knowing receipt against the third to fifth defendants
  3. 3 Whether there is a sufficient risk of dissipation to justify continuation of the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have established a seriously arguable case that the first defendant held funds on a Quistclose trust for the claimants and misappropriated them, and that the third to fifth defendants may have dishonestly assisted or received traceable proceeds. There is a sufficient risk of dissipation of assets by the applicants, and it is just and convenient to continue the freezing order. The application to set aside the freezing order is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; freezing order to continue.

Orders

  • The application by the third to fifth defendants to set aside the freezing order is dismissed.
  • The freezing order made against the third to fifth defendants remains in force pending further order.