Paresh Kantilal Chohan v Prakash Dhanji Patel

Cross-examination may be ordered to police a freezing order where the respondent has failed to provide the information and evidence required by the order, and the examination is directed towards effective enforcement rather than an ulterior purpose. The court should select a proportionate course, particularly where committal proceedings are another possible remedy. Documentary disclosure may extend to complete bank statements and documents evidencing pension drawdowns, their disposition and assets, where that material is needed for effective cross-examination. Disclosure of earnings is not required merely because it may be relevant background if the order requires disclosure of assets rather than income. Any protection against self-incrimination should be narrowly tailored to permit use of the transcript for policing the freezing order.

The claimant and defendant had formerly practised as solicitors in partnership. Following the breakdown of their relationship, a receiver manager was appointed and the partnership was eventually resolved by a consent order requiring substantial payments by the defendant.

After the defendant said that pension-related issues prevented timely payment, a freezing order was made over his pension and relevant drawn-down funds. The defendant provided incomplete information and failed to disclose assets or supporting documents. The claimant applied for cross-examination and consequential documentary disclosure. The issues were whether cross-examination was appropriate, what disclosure should precede it, how self-incrimination concerns should be addressed, and whether payment of the principal sums should automatically vacate the hearing.

1. Cross-examination ordered. The defendant had failed to comply with the freezing order by omitting details of his assets, providing inadequate information about the pension monies and producing no documentary support. Cross-examination was necessary to police the order and to establish whether other assets were available for enforcement. The application was not being used for an ulterior purpose because the underlying proceedings had settled and the purpose was enforcement. The principles identified in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2021] EWHC 403 (Ch) supported making the order.
2. The court regarded cross-examination as a more proportionate course at that stage than committal proceedings. This did not prevent the claimant from seeking committal in the future.
3. Documentary disclosure. Full bank statements for the Barclays account into which pension drawdowns were paid, and for any other relevant account, were required. Without them, it would be impossible to identify other receipts, further drawdowns or the use of pension monies. Documents evidencing pension drawings, their disposition and all assets held by or on behalf of the defendant were also required.
4. Disclosure of earnings for 2019 and the first six months of 2023 was refused. The defendant was required to disclose assets, not income, and the bank statements would reveal substantial additional receipts insofar as relevant.
5. Self-incrimination. A proposed restriction preventing any person from using the transcript for any purpose was too wide. The order instead permitted the claimant to use the transcript for policing the freezing order. Documents produced during cross-examination were excluded from that protection. The approach was informed by Memory Corps v Sidhu [2000] Ch 645.
6. If the sums due under the consent order were paid, the defendant could apply to be released from attendance and for the hearing to be vacated. That issue was left for the court to determine, particularly because receivers’ and managers’ costs remained potentially relevant.

First-instance application in the High Court. The judgment does not state any appeal from an earlier decision.