Vanessa Wurm & Ors v Kash Amini & Ors

Vanessa Wurm & Ors v Kash Amini & Ors

The claimants established a seriously arguable case that the first defendant held funds on a Quistclose trust for the claimants and misappropriated them, and that the applicants may have dishonestly assisted or received trust property. There is a sufficient risk of dissipation and lack of candour by the applicants to justify continuation of the freezing order. The balance of justice favours maintaining the order.

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
Civil Commercial/trusts / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to set aside freezing order dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Quistclose Trusts, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Risk of Dissipation, Interim Injunctions
Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Quistclose Trusts Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt Risk of Dissipation Interim Injunctions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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

Civil Commercial/trusts / Interlocutory 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 applicants (third to fifth defendants) dishonestly assisted in breach of trust or received trust property
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation justifying continuation of the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants established a seriously arguable case that the first defendant held funds on a Quistclose trust for the claimants and misappropriated them, and that the applicants may have dishonestly assisted or received trust property. There is a sufficient risk of dissipation and lack of candour by the applicants to justify continuation of the freezing order. The balance of justice favours maintaining the order.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside freezing order dismissed

Orders

  • Freezing order against the third to fifth defendants to remain in place pending trial or further order