1998/151 - Fuchs v Ekeh and Najam [1998] UR 151 (13 July 1998)

1998/151 - Fuchs v Ekeh and Najam [1998] UR 151 (13 July 1998)

The injunction should not be discharged because the Plaintiff made sufficient disclosure, there was no clear evidence of illegality or lack of clean hands, and there was a real risk of dissipation of funds if the injunction were lifted.

Citation
[1998] UR 151
Parties
Plaintiff: Edgar Herbert Fuchs; First Defendant: Dr Ben Ekeh; Second Defendant: Uddin Najam; Party Cited: Swiss Bank Corporation
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Injunction (mareva) / Hearing of Application to Discharge Injunction
Outcome
Application to discharge injunction refused
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Freezing Orders, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Clean Hands Doctrine, Full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation of Assets
Civil Procedure Fraud Banking Law Mareva Injunction Freezing Orders Fraudulent Misrepresentation Clean Hands Doctrine Full and Frank Disclosure +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edgar Herbert Fuchs

Plaintiff

Dr Ben Ekeh

First Defendant

Uddin Najam

Second Defendant

Swiss Bank Corporation

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Injunction (mareva) / Hearing of Application to Discharge Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mareva injunction should be discharged against the Second Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff lacked clean hands due to alleged involvement in bribery

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction should not be discharged because the Plaintiff made sufficient disclosure, there was no clear evidence of illegality or lack of clean hands, and there was a real risk of dissipation of funds if the injunction were lifted.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge injunction refused

Orders

  • Mareva injunction to remain in place
  • No variation of previous orders