Hunt v Patel & Anor [2022] EWHC 3228 (Ch) (15 December 2022)

Hunt v Patel & Anor [2022] EWHC 3228 (Ch) (15 December 2022)

The freezing orders should be continued against both respondents because there is a good arguable case they are liable as partners for the shortfall in Black Capital's assets, there is a real risk of dissipation given evidence of a Ponzi scheme and asset movements, and the balance of convenience favours continuation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3228 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Hunt; Respondent: Sarju Patel; Respondent: Ravneet Ubhi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Freezing Order Application in Insolvency Proceedings / Application to Continue Freezing Orders Post Provisional Liquidator Appointment
Outcome
Freezing orders continued against both respondents; application to amend cross-undertaking dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Provisional Liquidator, Full and Frank Disclosure, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Ponzi Scheme Allegations
Insolvency Partnership Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Provisional Liquidator Full and Frank Disclosure Cross Undertaking in Damages Ponzi Scheme Allegations

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Hunt

Applicant

Sarju Patel

Respondent

Ravneet Ubhi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freezing Order Application in Insolvency Proceedings / Application to Continue Freezing Orders Post Provisional Liquidator Appointment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing orders against the respondents should be continued
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure at the without notice hearing
  3. 3 Adequacy of the cross-undertaking in damages

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing orders should be continued against both respondents because there is a good arguable case they are liable as partners for the shortfall in Black Capital's assets, there is a real risk of dissipation given evidence of a Ponzi scheme and asset movements, and the balance of convenience favours continuation despite the limited cross-undertaking in damages.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders continued against both respondents; application to amend cross-undertaking dismissed.

Orders

  • Freezing orders to continue on existing terms with agreed amendments for Mr Ubhi (increase in living expenses to £2,500/week; permission to sell Lamborghini for legal expenses).
  • Application to amend cross-undertaking as to damages dismissed.