Fiona & Ors v Privalov & Ors
22 May 2007, HC (QB Division) Steel J
Court: High Court
Date of Judgment: 22.05.07
Justin Higgo, Jennifer Haywood
The Claimants sought permission to add further claims and a freezing order in relation to those new claims. A freezing injunction had previously been granted (in September 2005) in support of the initial claims and had been discharged upon provision of $225m security. The application was made inter partes. The Defendants contended that the existing claims were already oversecured and that the Claimants had not made out a sufficient risk of dissipation. In particular, one defendant relied on the fact that the Claimants had not previously sought a freezing order against him on the original application, the Claimants' alleged failure to demonstrate dissipation since then, and the fact that the application was made inter partes. The defendants also contended that, in any event, the Claimants should be precluded from obtaining injunctive relief because there was evidence of improper investigation techniques.
Steel J gave leave to amend the particulars of claim and granted further freezing orders up to £377m. He found that the Claimants had more than made out an arguable case on liability. He held that it was not open to the Defendants to contend that the existing claims were oversecured; that there was a risk of dissipation; that, the Claimants not having relied upon the investigators' reports, the possibility that they had included information derived from unlawful activity was no basis for refusing the relief sought; and, that it was not open to the Defendants to raise an allegation of non-disclosure which had already been before the Court.