Edhem v Edhem & Anor [2022] EWHC 2571 (Comm) (25 February 2022)

Edhem v Edhem & Anor [2022] EWHC 2571 (Comm) (25 February 2022)

The applicant has a good arguable case for enforcement of a tribunal award, there is credible evidence of risk of dissipation of assets by the first respondent, and assets may be held by the second respondent for the first respondent's benefit. The requirements for both a freezing injunction and Chabra relief are satisfied. The applicant's alleged lack of full and frank disclosure and clean hands arguments do not undermine the basis for relief.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2571 (Comm)
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 Under Tribunal Courts Enforcement Act 2007, S.27 / Adjourned Return Date Hearing for Continuation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application allowed; freezing injunction continued against both respondents.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Tribunal Awards, Chabra Jurisdiction, Forgery of Property Transfer, Risk of Dissipation of Assets
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Property Law Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Tribunal Awards Chabra Jurisdiction Forgery of Property Transfer Risk of Dissipation of Assets

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 Under Tribunal Courts Enforcement Act 2007, S.27 / Adjourned Return Date Hearing for Continuation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a freezing injunction against the respondents under s.27 of the Tribunal Courts Enforcement Act 2007
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for Chabra relief against the second respondent are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has a good arguable case for enforcement of a tribunal award, there is credible evidence of risk of dissipation of assets by the first respondent, and assets may be held by the second respondent for the first respondent's benefit. The requirements for both a freezing injunction and Chabra relief are satisfied. The applicant's alleged lack of full and frank disclosure and clean hands arguments do not undermine the basis for relief.

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 Chabra jurisdiction.