Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza & Anor

Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza & Anor

There is powerful and solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation by the Defendants, including actual and attempted asset transfers, failure to perfect security, and unexplained disappearance of inventory. The existence of other security and ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions do not negate the risk or make it unjust or inconvenient to continue the WFO. No material non-disclosure occurred that would justify setting aside the WFO.

Parties
Claimant: Madison Pacific Trust Limited; Defendant: Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza; Defendant: Volodomyr Serhiyovch Naumenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Freezing Order Application / Application to Set Aside Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo)
Outcome
Application to set aside Worldwide Freezing Order dismissed; WFO to remain in place.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Risk of Dissipation, Full and Frank Disclosure, Security for Debt, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration Freezing Injunctions Risk of Dissipation Full and Frank Disclosure Security for Debt Enforcement of Arbitration Awards

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madison Pacific Trust Limited

Claimant

Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza

Defendant

Volodomyr Serhiyovch Naumenko

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Freezing Order Application / Application to Set Aside Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the WFO
  2. 2 Whether it is just and convenient to continue the WFO
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the WFO

Ratio Decidendi

There is powerful and solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation by the Defendants, including actual and attempted asset transfers, failure to perfect security, and unexplained disappearance of inventory. The existence of other security and ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions do not negate the risk or make it unjust or inconvenient to continue the WFO. No material non-disclosure occurred that would justify setting aside the WFO.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside Worldwide Freezing Order dismissed; WFO to remain in place.

Orders

  • Worldwide Freezing Order to continue against the Defendants.
  • Court to hear further argument on whether the WFO should be replaced with confidential undertakings and on consequential matters.