Toorani v Toorani [2019] JRC 023 (12 February 2019)

Toorani v Toorani [2019] JRC 023 (12 February 2019)

The court held that while there were some failures of disclosure by the plaintiffs, none were sufficiently material to have affected the grant of the injunction or to justify its discharge. The duty of full and frank disclosure is stringent but does not require disclosure of every detail or unlikely defences. Once the matter became inter partes, the obligation to update the court with new information shifted, especially where the information was within the knowledge of the Interveners. Even if there had been material non-disclosure, the court would have exercised its discretion to re-impose the injunction, as the merits justified its continuation.

Citation
[2019] JRC 023
Parties
Intervener: Badriya Abdul Rasool Toorani; Intervener: Markh Abdul Rasool Toorani; Intervener: Rabab Abdul Rasool Toorani; Intervener: Shadukh Abdul Rasool Toorani; Plaintiff: Sameera Abdul Rasool Toorani; Plaintiff: Khairayah Abdul Rasool Toorani; Plaintiff: Rouhangiz Abdul Rasool Toorani; Plaintiff: Zainab Abdul Rasool Toorani; Plaintiff: Maryam Abdul Rasool Toorani; Defendant: Red Rose Limited; Party Cited: Ocorian Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Injunction (freezing Order) Discharge/variation Application / Post Interim Injunction, Application to Discharge or Vary
Outcome
Application dismissed; injunction maintained (with prior amendments).
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Material Non Disclosure, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Family Disputes Over Estates
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Insolvency Family Law Freezing Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Material Non Disclosure Enforcement of Foreign Judgments +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Badriya Abdul Rasool Toorani

Intervener

Markh Abdul Rasool Toorani

Intervener

Rabab Abdul Rasool Toorani

Intervener

Shadukh Abdul Rasool Toorani

Intervener

Sameera Abdul Rasool Toorani

Plaintiff

Khairayah Abdul Rasool Toorani

Plaintiff

Rouhangiz Abdul Rasool Toorani

Plaintiff

Zainab Abdul Rasool Toorani

Plaintiff

Maryam Abdul Rasool Toorani

Plaintiff

Red Rose Limited

Defendant

Ocorian Limited

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Injunction (freezing Order) Discharge/variation Application / Post Interim Injunction, Application to Discharge or Vary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged or varied due to alleged material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application
  3. 3 Whether subsequent facts or evidence required further disclosure to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while there were some failures of disclosure by the plaintiffs, none were sufficiently material to have affected the grant of the injunction or to justify its discharge. The duty of full and frank disclosure is stringent but does not require disclosure of every detail or unlikely defences. Once the matter became inter partes, the obligation to update the court with new information shifted, especially where the information was within the knowledge of the Interveners. Even if there had been material non-disclosure, the court would have exercised its discretion to re-impose the injunction, as the merits justified its continuation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; injunction maintained (with prior amendments).

Orders

  • The application to discharge or vary the freezing injunction is dismissed.
  • The freezing injunction remains in place as previously amended.