Alternative Investment Solutions (General) Ltd v Valle De Uco Resort & Spa SA & Ors [2013] EWHC 333 (QB) (22 February 2013)

Alternative Investment Solutions (General) Ltd v Valle De Uco Resort & Spa SA & Ors [2013] EWHC 333 (QB) (22 February 2013)

There is a good arguable case of fraudulent misrepresentation by the Crossicks regarding the planning status and intention to provide security; there is a real risk of dissipation of assets; although there was culpable non-disclosure by the claimant, the circumstances justify continuing the freezing order to avoid injustice.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 333
Parties
Claimant: Alternative Investment Solutions (General) Ltd; Defendant: Valle de Uco Resort & Spa SA; Defendant: Jonathan Crossick; Defendant: Alise Crossick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order / Post Interim Injunction, Hearing on Discharge Application
Outcome
Application to discharge the worldwide freezing order refused; freezing order continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Disclosure Obligations, Security for Loans
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Disclosure Obligations Security for Loans

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alternative Investment Solutions (General) Ltd

Claimant

Valle de Uco Resort & Spa SA

Defendant

Jonathan Crossick

Defendant

Alise Crossick

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order / Post Interim Injunction, Hearing on Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the worldwide freezing order should be discharged for lack of merit or material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case of fraudulent misrepresentation against the Crossicks
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case of fraudulent misrepresentation by the Crossicks regarding the planning status and intention to provide security; there is a real risk of dissipation of assets; although there was culpable non-disclosure by the claimant, the circumstances justify continuing the freezing order to avoid injustice.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the worldwide freezing order refused; freezing order continued.

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing order against the defendants is continued.