Mirchandani v Gheewala [2020] EWHC 1742 (QB) (02 July 2020)

Mirchandani v Gheewala [2020] EWHC 1742 (QB) (02 July 2020)

Mr Mirchandani failed to establish any credible material change of circumstances or provide reliable evidence of impecuniosity; he had the opportunity to contest the orders and did so at least in part. The freezing orders remain justified to protect enforcement. The extension of time granted by Spencer J was improperly made without notice and prejudiced Augusta; it is set aside.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1742 (QB)
Parties
Applicant: Murli Mirchandani; First Respondent: Alka Gheewala; Second Respondent: Augusta Ventures Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2020
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Applications (freezing Orders, Set Aside, Costs) / Judgment on Applications to Discharge/continue Freezing Orders and Set Aside Extension of Time Order
Outcome
Mr Mirchandani's application to discharge freezing orders is dismissed; Augusta's application to set aside the Spencer J Order is allowed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Setting Aside Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Costs Orders, Asset Disclosure, Change of Circumstances, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Injunctions Enforcement of Judgments Freezing Orders Setting Aside Orders Relief From Sanctions Costs Orders Asset Disclosure +2 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murli Mirchandani

Applicant

Alka Gheewala

First Respondent

Augusta Ventures Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Applications (freezing Orders, Set Aside, Costs) / Judgment on Applications to Discharge/continue Freezing Orders and Set Aside Extension of Time Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing orders against Mr Mirchandani should be discharged for material change of circumstances or lack of risk of dissipation
  2. 2 Whether the order of Spencer J granting retrospective extension of time should be set aside for procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Mirchandani failed to establish any credible material change of circumstances or provide reliable evidence of impecuniosity; he had the opportunity to contest the orders and did so at least in part. The freezing orders remain justified to protect enforcement. The extension of time granted by Spencer J was improperly made without notice and prejudiced Augusta; it is set aside.

Court Disposition

Mr Mirchandani's application to discharge freezing orders is dismissed; Augusta's application to set aside the Spencer J Order is allowed.

Orders

  • Freezing orders against Mr Mirchandani remain in force.
  • Spencer J's order granting retrospective extension of time is set aside.