David Victor Garofalo v David Adrian Crisp & Ors

David Victor Garofalo v David Adrian Crisp & Ors

There is an exceptionally strong prima facie case of unfair prejudice due to prohibited sales to Russia, concealment of accounts, and breach of fiduciary and statutory duties by the First Respondent. Urgent interim relief is justified to preserve evidence, protect the business, and prevent frustration of court orders. The legal tests for mandatory injunctions, imaging orders, and passport orders are satisfied.

Parties
Applicant/intended Petitioner: David Victor Garofalo; Respondent/respondent in an Intended Petition: David Adrian Crisp; Respondent: Yulia Crisp; Respondent in an Intended Petition: Valorem Holdings Limited; Respondent in an Intended Petition: Valorem Capital One Limited; Respondent in an Intended Petition: Valorem Distribution Limited; Respondent in an Intended Petition: Valorem Bespoke Limited; Respondent in an Intended Petition: CP Parfums Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Company Law Petition for Unfair Prejudice and Interim Relief / Interim Application for Urgent Ex Parte Relief Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Interim relief granted ex parte; orders made as sought with minor alterations; consent order approved to vary compliance and discontinue passport order.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Directors' Duties, Interim Relief, Imaging Orders, Passport Orders, Disclosure, Board Reconstitution
Company Law Injunctions Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Directors' Duties Interim Relief Imaging Orders Passport Orders +2 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 7 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Victor Garofalo

Applicant/intended Petitioner

David Adrian Crisp

Respondent/respondent in an Intended Petition

Yulia Crisp

Respondent

Valorem Holdings Limited

Respondent in an Intended Petition

Valorem Capital One Limited

Respondent in an Intended Petition

Valorem Distribution Limited

Respondent in an Intended Petition

Valorem Bespoke Limited

Respondent in an Intended Petition

CP Parfums Limited

Respondent in an Intended Petition

Procedural Posture

Company Law Petition for Unfair Prejudice and Interim Relief / Interim Application for Urgent Ex Parte Relief Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the First Respondent constitutes unfair prejudice under s.994 Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether urgent interim relief including removal of director, appointment of new directors, imaging order, delivery up, and passport order is justified
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner has satisfied the legal tests for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions, imaging orders, and passport orders

Ratio Decidendi

There is an exceptionally strong prima facie case of unfair prejudice due to prohibited sales to Russia, concealment of accounts, and breach of fiduciary and statutory duties by the First Respondent. Urgent interim relief is justified to preserve evidence, protect the business, and prevent frustration of court orders. The legal tests for mandatory injunctions, imaging orders, and passport orders are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted ex parte; orders made as sought with minor alterations; consent order approved to vary compliance and discontinue passport order.

Orders

  • Removal of First Respondent as director of English Companies until Return Date or further order
  • Appointment of Petitioner, Dominic Fisher, and Stephen Diederich as directors of English Companies