Erlam v Rahman [2015] EWHC 2370 (QB) (06 August 2015)

Erlam v Rahman [2015] EWHC 2370 (QB) (06 August 2015)

There is a real risk that unless restrained by order of the court, the defendant will dissipate his assets and frustrate enforcement of the judgment debt. The defendant's evidence regarding his assets and sources of funds is incomplete and raises more questions than it answers. The freezing order is continued until 31 January 2016, with further disclosure ordered regarding rental income, bank statements, loans, and valuable chattels.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2370 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Erlam; Defendant: Mohammed Lutfur Rahman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (injunctive Relief in Support of Enforcement of Judgment Debt) / Interim Application for Continuation of Freezing and Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Freezing order continued with modifications; further disclosure ordered; costs reserved for later determination.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Charging Orders, Costs Orders, Risk of Dissipation
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Freezing Injunctions Asset Disclosure Charging Orders Costs Orders Risk of Dissipation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Erlam

Claimant

Mohammed Lutfur Rahman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (injunctive Relief in Support of Enforcement of Judgment Debt) / Interim Application for Continuation of Freezing and Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether further disclosure orders should be made regarding the defendant's assets and sources of funds

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real risk that unless restrained by order of the court, the defendant will dissipate his assets and frustrate enforcement of the judgment debt. The defendant's evidence regarding his assets and sources of funds is incomplete and raises more questions than it answers. The freezing order is continued until 31 January 2016, with further disclosure ordered regarding rental income, bank statements, loans, and valuable chattels.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued with modifications; further disclosure ordered; costs reserved for later determination.

Orders

  • Freezing order continued until midnight on 31 January 2016.
  • Defendant to provide further disclosure regarding rental income, bank statements from 1 January 2010, loan agreements, and valuable chattels by 14 August 2015.