We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
16 June 2020
The High Court has issued an important reminder of the need for solid evidence of a real risk that a respondent will take steps to dissipate their assets to frustrate a judgment in applications to continue a worldwide freezing order (WFO). Evidence of dishonesty alone is not enough, and conduct falling short of dishonesty is less likely to suffice.
Sheikh Salah Hamdan Albluewi, a Saudi national, had been a member of a members' club and casino owned by Les Ambassadeurs for approximately 26 years. Given his longstanding membership, Les Ambassadeurs provided Albluewi with a cheque cashing facility. In September 2019 this was extended to £2 million on a temporary basis. Albluewi utilised the full amount.
However, these cheques were dishonoured and during Les Ambassadeurs' attempts to recover the outstanding amount over the following months, Albluewi travelled back to Saudi Arabia where gambling debts are unenforceable. It also became apparent that Albluewi had significant outstanding gambling debts with other casinos.
Les Ambassadeurs secured a WFO, which was subsequently continued at a hearing with the parties present. Les Ambassadeurs then applied to continue the WFO on the basis that was it necessary to prevent Albluewi from dissipating his assets; Albluewi applied to discharge the WFO because:
Was there a real risk of dissipation?
Les Ambassadeurs argued that there was a real risk of dissipation because:
Therefore, Albluewi's behaviour was indicative of a person lacking in commercial probity and these factors, when taken together, provided solid evidence from which a real risk of dissipation could be inferred.
Albluewi argued that none of the individual factors identified by Les Ambassadeurs provided a basis to infer a real risk of dissipation. Even in a case based on fraud or dishonesty, there was a question over whether that alone would provide a basis for real risk of dissipation. In this case, Les Ambassadeurs had confirmed that it was not alleging dishonesty but rather a lack of commercial probity.
The court stated that all of the circumstances of the case must be considered together and that the key questions were how far the alleged lack of commercial probity went and, critically, whether it showed a real risk of dissipation given all of the circumstances. The further removed the allegations were from dishonesty in terms of low commercial morality, the more difficult it would be to rely on the relevant conduct as giving risk to a real risk of dissipation. In this case, the lack of commercial probity was at the lower end of the scale. Therefore, Les Ambassadeurs had failed to establish a real risk of dissipation.
Further important considerations were that:
Therefore, Les Ambassadeurs' application to continue the WFO was dismissed. The final two grounds fell away; however, Albluewi alleged that Les Ambassadeurs had not given a fair presentation of the case at the without notice hearing by failing to provide the full and frank disclosure required in applications for WFOs.
Full and frank disclosure?
While the court found that there had been two relevant breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure, since no real risk of dissipation had been established, there was no need for the court to consider whether the WFO would be regranted if discharged on this basis.
The court noted that it is good practice in most cases for a transcript to be obtained by a party alleging material non-disclosure so that the court is properly equipped to determine the issue. In most cases, absent particular urgency, the applicant's note of the hearing will not suffice.
This judgment is a valuable reminder of the importance of WFO applicants having robust evidence of a real risk of dissipation. Without it, the court will discharge a WFO and order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. It is well established that evidence of dishonesty alone is not enough, and this case shows that conduct falling short of dishonesty (eg, a lack of commercial probity) is even less likely to suffice. This can be contrasted with cases where the alleged dishonesty goes to the heart of the question of the risk of dissipation, as was the case in Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited v Morimoto.(1)
Two further important lessons arising from this judgment are:
For further information on this topic please contact Jonathan Cary or Jodie Gittins at RPC by telephone (+44 20 3060 6000) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). The RPC website can be accessed at www.rpc.co.uk.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.