Kanev-Lipinski v Aharon Lipinski & Ors

Kanev-Lipinski v Aharon Lipinski & Ors

There was no material non-disclosure by Maya in obtaining the original orders. Maya failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets by Shahar or the companies. Relief sought under section 25, including financial restraints, proprietary relief, and ancillary disclosure orders, is refused. The application to amend the claim form to add a contractual claim for disclosure is adjourned pending developments in the Israeli proceedings and possible clarification from the Israeli court.

Parties
Claimant: Maya Kanev-Lipinski; Defendant: Shahar Aharon Lipinski; Defendant: Megaclose Limited; Defendant: Megaclose (Leicester) Limited; Defendant: Byron Works Ltd; Defendant: East Midlands Technical Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing and Asset Preservation Orders / Substantive Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Relief sought under section 25 refused; application to amend claim form adjourned.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Preservation, Disclosure Orders, Contractual Claims, Forum Conveniens
Family Law Civil Procedure International Jurisdiction Freezing Injunctions Asset Preservation Disclosure Orders Contractual Claims Forum Conveniens

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

Parties

Maya Kanev-Lipinski

Claimant

Shahar Aharon Lipinski

Defendant

Megaclose Limited

Defendant

Megaclose (Leicester) Limited

Defendant

Byron Works Ltd

Defendant

East Midlands Technical Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Freezing and Asset Preservation Orders / Substantive Return Date Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant in obtaining freezing and asset preservation orders
  2. 2 Whether the reframed relief sought under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 should be granted
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material non-disclosure by Maya in obtaining the original orders. Maya failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets by Shahar or the companies. Relief sought under section 25, including financial restraints, proprietary relief, and ancillary disclosure orders, is refused. The application to amend the claim form to add a contractual claim for disclosure is adjourned pending developments in the Israeli proceedings and possible clarification from the Israeli court.

Court Disposition

Relief sought under section 25 refused; application to amend claim form adjourned.

Orders

  • Freezing and asset preservation orders not continued.
  • Disclosure orders refused.