Cibc Mellon Trust Company & Ors v Stolzenberg & Ors [2003] EWHC 13 (Ch) (03 February 2003)

Cibc Mellon Trust Company & Ors v Stolzenberg & Ors [2003] EWHC 13 (Ch) (03 February 2003)

Mora and Chascona failed to comply with 'unless' orders intentionally, on legal advice, and without good explanation. The breaches were serious, the applications for relief were not made promptly, and the balance of justice does not favour granting relief. The court is not satisfied this is an appropriate case for relief from sanctions or for setting aside the default judgments. The judgments and orders against Mora and Chascona stand.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 13 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: CIBC Mellon Trust Company & Ors; Defendant: Stolzenberg & Ors; Tenth Defendant: Mora Hotel Corporation NV; Thirty Eighth Defendant: Chascona NV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application to Set Aside Default Judgments and for Relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Applications dismissed; relief from sanctions and to set aside judgments refused.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Conspiracy to Injure, Knowing Receipt, Fraud, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Tort Law Relief From Sanctions Setting Aside Default Judgment Conspiracy to Injure Knowing Receipt Fraud +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CIBC Mellon Trust Company & Ors

Claimant

Stolzenberg & Ors

Defendant

Mora Hotel Corporation NV

Tenth Defendant

Chascona NV

Thirty Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application to Set Aside Default Judgments and for Relief From Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mora and Chascona should be granted relief from sanctions imposed by 'unless' orders for non-compliance
  2. 2 Whether default judgments against Mora and Chascona should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether Mora and Chascona have a real prospect of defending the tracing and conspiracy claims

Ratio Decidendi

Mora and Chascona failed to comply with 'unless' orders intentionally, on legal advice, and without good explanation. The breaches were serious, the applications for relief were not made promptly, and the balance of justice does not favour granting relief. The court is not satisfied this is an appropriate case for relief from sanctions or for setting aside the default judgments. The judgments and orders against Mora and Chascona stand.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; relief from sanctions and to set aside judgments refused.

Orders

  • Default judgments against Mora and Chascona remain in force.
  • Applications for relief from sanctions and to set aside judgments are dismissed.