London Capital & Finance Plc & Ors v Thomson & Ors

London Capital & Finance Plc & Ors v Thomson & Ors

The existence of the CROs does not remove the risk of dissipation or render the WFOs unnecessary, as the CROs are not a complete or reliable substitute for the claimants' interests. The risk of dissipation remains real and non-trivial. The third and fourth respondents are not precluded from contesting the continuation of the WFOs on the grounds of arguable case or factual risk of dissipation at a future hearing, as they did not have a practical opportunity to do so previously and their conduct was not abusive.

Parties
Claimant: London Capital & Finance PLC (in administration); Claimant: Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Henry Shinners, Colin Hardman, Geoffrey Rowley (Joint Administrators of London Capital & Finance PLC (in administration)); Claimant: London Oil & Gas Limited (in administration); Claimant: Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Colin Hardman, Lane Bednash (Joint Administrators of London Oil & Gas Limited (in administration)); Defendant: Michael Andrew Thomson; Defendant: Simon Hume-Kendall; Defendant: Elten Barker; Defendant: Spencer Golding; Defendant: Helen Hume-Kendall; Intervener: Serious Fraud Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial (freezing Orders) / Interlocutory Application; Return Date for Continuation of Worldwide Freezing Orders
Outcome
Worldwide freezing orders continued against the third and fourth respondents; third and fourth respondents permitted to contest on further grounds at future hearing.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Criminal Restraint Orders, Risk of Dissipation, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Criminal Restraint Orders Risk of Dissipation Interlocutory 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Capital & Finance PLC (in administration)

Claimant

Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Henry Shinners, Colin Hardman, Geoffrey Rowley (Joint Administrators of London Capital & Finance PLC (in administration))

Claimant

London Oil & Gas Limited (in administration)

Claimant

Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Colin Hardman, Lane Bednash (Joint Administrators of London Oil & Gas Limited (in administration))

Claimant

Michael Andrew Thomson

Defendant

Simon Hume-Kendall

Defendant

Elten Barker

Defendant

Spencer Golding

Defendant

Helen Hume-Kendall

Defendant

Serious Fraud Office

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial (freezing Orders) / Interlocutory Application; Return Date for Continuation of Worldwide Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existence of Criminal Restraint Orders (CROs) precludes or renders unnecessary the continuation of civil worldwide freezing orders (WFOs) against the third and fourth respondents
  2. 2 Whether the third and fourth respondents may contest the continuation of the WFOs on grounds of arguable case or factual risk of dissipation at a future hearing, having previously only argued the 'narrow CRO point'

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of the CROs does not remove the risk of dissipation or render the WFOs unnecessary, as the CROs are not a complete or reliable substitute for the claimants' interests. The risk of dissipation remains real and non-trivial. The third and fourth respondents are not precluded from contesting the continuation of the WFOs on the grounds of arguable case or factual risk of dissipation at a future hearing, as they did not have a practical opportunity to do so previously and their conduct was not abusive.

Court Disposition

Worldwide freezing orders continued against the third and fourth respondents; third and fourth respondents permitted to contest on further grounds at future hearing.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing orders against the third and fourth respondents are continued.
  • The third and fourth respondents may argue good arguable case and factual risk of dissipation at the further hearing without needing to show a change of circumstances.