Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

A freezing order may be maintained where there is a real prospect that the defendant owns or controls assets and may take steps to evade enforcement. The court may require full disclosure of dealings with substantial assets, supporting documentation and cooperation with investigation into present means. A bare assertion that the defendant has no assets is insufficient, particularly where the defendant has a history of non-compliance and evasion.

There is no absolute right to cross-examine a deponent on an earlier freezing-order application. Such cross-examination requires a proper evidential basis. A complaint about disclosure becomes academic once the relevant order is spent and the underlying hearing has concluded.

The claimant represented the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja in long-running proceedings against Mr Nicholas van Hoogstraten and associated companies. The estate had obtained a worldwide freezing order in 2002. Following judgment on the preliminary issue that Mr van Hoogstraten had recruited persons to murder Mr Raja, and in the light of substantial unpaid costs orders and continuing claims, the order was reinstated in November 2005.

Mr van Hoogstraten applied to discharge the order. He also sought to challenge the estate’s disclosure, cross-examine a principal deponent, and complain about disclosure by the Crown Prosecution Service. The central questions were whether the freezing order remained justified, whether cross-examination was required, and whether the CPS disclosure issue remained live.

1. The applications were dismissed. The court considered the position after the judgment on the preliminary issue, rather than determining whether the freezing order should originally have been granted.

2. There was a real prospect that Mr van Hoogstraten had substantial assets within his ownership or control, or available through persons acting on his instructions. His bare statement that he had no assets was not credible in the light of his wealth, previous assertions, unexplained dispositions and continuing refusal to provide documentation.

3. To challenge the order effectively, he would have to disclose what had happened to his substantial assets, document dispositions, identify professionals or others involved, disclose relevant tax and other returns, and cooperate with investigation into his means. His refusal to provide that evidence supported the conclusion that the order remained necessary because he might take evasive action when pressed by creditors.

4. The court noted the principle in Halifax plc v Chandler [2001] EWCA 2042 Civ 1750 that a freezing order, particularly against third parties, should not prevent dealings in the ordinary course of business. That principle had already led to modification of the order affecting the companies, but did not justify discharging the order against Mr van Hoogstraten.

5. The estate’s disclosure of assets worth £1.5 million was adequate to support its cross-undertaking in damages. There was no absolute right to cross-examine Mr Lightfoot, and no evidence supported the allegation that he had lied or deliberately misled the court. The complaint concerning the CPS was academic because the disclosure order was spent and the preliminary issue had been determined.

The judgment describes earlier procedural steps in the same litigation, including the grant and reinstatement of the freezing order and judgment on the preliminary issue. It does not determine an appeal.