Ivanhoe Mines Ltd v Gardner [2020] EWHC 144 (Comm) (29 January 2020)

Ivanhoe Mines Ltd v Gardner [2020] EWHC 144 (Comm) (29 January 2020)

A real risk of dissipation was established based on Mr Gardner's prior conduct, resistance to satisfying judgment debts, ease of alienation of disclosed assets, and practical enforcement difficulties. Continuation of the freezing order is just and convenient to protect Ivanhoe's ability to enforce the judgments.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 144 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Ivanhoe Mines Limited; Defendant: Tony Ricky Gardner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Post Judgment Freezing Order Application / Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing order continued with modifications; ancillary relief granted in part; costs summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Post Judgment Enforcement, Asset Dissipation, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Post Judgment Enforcement Asset Dissipation Costs Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivanhoe Mines Limited

Claimant

Tony Ricky Gardner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Post Judgment Freezing Order Application / Return Date Hearing on Continuation and Variation of Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a real risk of dissipation of assets exists justifying continuation of the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether it is just and convenient to continue the freezing order
  3. 3 Appropriate scope and terms of the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

A real risk of dissipation was established based on Mr Gardner's prior conduct, resistance to satisfying judgment debts, ease of alienation of disclosed assets, and practical enforcement difficulties. Continuation of the freezing order is just and convenient to protect Ivanhoe's ability to enforce the judgments.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued with modifications; ancillary relief granted in part; costs summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Freezing order continued substantially in original form.
  • Mr Gardner required to give 14 days' notice to Ivanhoe of payments out of Banco Sabadell accounts if share falls below £673,500.