AXNOLLER EVENTS LIMITED v NIHAL MOHAMMED KAMAL BRAKE & Anor

AXNOLLER EVENTS LIMITED v NIHAL MOHAMMED KAMAL BRAKE & Anor

There is a continued real risk of dissipation of assets by the Brakes, based on both historic and recent conduct, including use of nominees, undervalue transactions, and unsatisfactory explanations for asset shortfalls. It is just and convenient to continue the freezing injunction to protect the applicants'...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Axnoller Events Limited; Defendant: Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Defendant: Andrew Young Brake; Defendant: Tom Conyers D’Arcy; Defendant: The Chedington Court Estate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
freezing injunction continued until trial or further order
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Risk of Dissipation, Asset Disclosure, Possession Proceedings, Eviction Proceedings
Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts and Equity Freezing Injunction Risk of Dissipation Asset Disclosure Possession Proceedings Eviction Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Axnoller Events Limited

Claimant

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Defendant

Andrew Young Brake

Defendant

Tom Conyers D’Arcy

Defendant

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue a worldwide freezing injunction against the Brakes' assets
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Brakes
  3. 3 Whether it is just and convenient to continue the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There is a continued real risk of dissipation of assets by the Brakes, based on both historic and recent conduct, including use of nominees, undervalue transactions, and unsatisfactory explanations for asset shortfalls. It is just and convenient to continue the freezing injunction to protect the applicants' interests until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

freezing injunction continued until trial or further order

Orders

  • Continuation of worldwide freezing injunction against the Brakes' assets up to £700,000
  • Brakes to provide further disclosure of assets by affidavit as specified in the order