Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

There is solid evidence of a real risk of unjustified dissipation of the Defendant’s assets located outside England and Wales, based on a pattern of lack of transparency, misleading disclosure, and prior asset dissipation. The English court has in personam jurisdiction, there is a sufficient connection to the jurisdiction, and it is not inexpedient to grant a worldwide freezing order except as regards assets in Greece, where comity and the Greek court’s powers require the English court to refrain from making an order.

Parties
Claimant: Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou; Defendant: Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (freezing Order Application) / Judgment on Application to Extend Freezing Order Worldwide
Outcome
Claimant’s application to extend the freezing order is granted in part.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Dissipation, Jurisdiction, Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Comity, Disclosure Orders
Civil Procedure Private International Law Freezing Orders Asset Dissipation Jurisdiction Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Comity Disclosure Orders

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou

Claimant

Mr James Alexander Scott Thomson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (freezing Order Application) / Judgment on Application to Extend Freezing Order Worldwide

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend the freezing order to the Defendant’s assets worldwide (excluding Greece)
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets abroad
  3. 3 Whether it is just and convenient and not inexpedient to grant a worldwide freezing order under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Ratio Decidendi

There is solid evidence of a real risk of unjustified dissipation of the Defendant’s assets located outside England and Wales, based on a pattern of lack of transparency, misleading disclosure, and prior asset dissipation. The English court has in personam jurisdiction, there is a sufficient connection to the jurisdiction, and it is not inexpedient to grant a worldwide freezing order except as regards assets in Greece, where comity and the Greek court’s powers require the English court to refrain from making an order.

Court Disposition

Claimant’s application to extend the freezing order is granted in part.

Orders

  • The freezing order is extended to apply to the Defendant’s assets worldwide, except for assets located in Greece.
  • Decision on the Claimant’s application for further disclosure is postponed pending further submissions.