Edhem v Mehmet Edhem & Anor.

Edhem v Mehmet Edhem & Anor.

The applicant satisfied the requirements for a freezing injunction, including a good arguable case, risk of dissipation, and assets to which the order can apply. The Chabra jurisdiction requirements were met as there was evidence the Second Respondent may hold assets for the First Respondent. The clean hands and full disclosure objections were not substantiated. It is just and convenient to continue the order.

Parties
Applicant: Mrs Muazzez Edhem; First Respondent: Mr Mehmet Edhem; Second Respondent: Mrs Sina Abdo Mohammed Edhem
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction Application (enforcement of Tribunal Award) / Adjourned Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application allowed; freezing injunction continued against both respondents.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Enforcement of Tribunal Awards, Chabra Jurisdiction, Clean Hands Doctrine
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunction Enforcement of Tribunal Awards Chabra Jurisdiction Clean Hands Doctrine

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Muazzez Edhem

Applicant

Mr Mehmet Edhem

First Respondent

Mrs Sina Abdo Mohammed Edhem

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction Application (enforcement of Tribunal Award) / Adjourned Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a continuation of the freezing injunction against the respondents
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for relief under the Chabra jurisdiction are satisfied against the Second Respondent
  3. 3 Whether the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant satisfied the requirements for a freezing injunction, including a good arguable case, risk of dissipation, and assets to which the order can apply. The Chabra jurisdiction requirements were met as there was evidence the Second Respondent may hold assets for the First Respondent. The clean hands and full disclosure objections were not substantiated. It is just and convenient to continue the order.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; freezing injunction continued against both respondents.

Orders

  • Freezing order continued against the First Respondent up to £450,000.
  • Freezing order continued against the Second Respondent under the Chabra jurisdiction.