Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

An application under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 requires the court to consider whether equivalent domestic relief would be available, whether the statutory discretion is not inexpedient, and whether the usual requirements for a freezing order are met. Those requirements include a realistically arguable case, a real risk of unjustified dissipation, and it being just and convenient to grant relief. A worldwide order will rarely be appropriate where the respondent has limited allegiance to England and Wales and the evidence principally concerns assets within the jurisdiction. In such a case, a domestic freezing order may be granted. Alternative service may be authorised where exceptional circumstances make prompt notification important, provided the proposed method is not positively unlawful in the country of service.

The claimant sought, without notice, a worldwide freezing order under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of civil proceedings intended to be commenced in Greece. The dispute concerned cryptocurrency allegedly due under a Greek matrimonial settlement and related allegations of breach of contract and misrepresentation.

The respondent lived in Greece and did not appear. The court considered the merits of the proposed Greek claim, the alleged risk of dissipation, the territorial scope of any order, comity, fortification of the cross-undertaking, and alternative service of the order and supporting documents.

1. Requirements for section 25 relief. The court identified four questions: whether equivalent relief would be available for proceedings in England and Wales; whether the claimant had shown a realistically arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and that relief was just and convenient; and whether granting relief under section 25 was not inexpedient.
2. Merits and dissipation. The claimant showed a good arguable case on the underlying causes of action. The evidence, including allegations of dishonesty, false accounting, concealed or manipulated corporate structures and interference with cryptocurrency accounts, established a real risk of unjustified dissipation. That risk had to be supported by solid evidence and could not be inferred from dishonesty alone.
3. Territorial scope. Applying the principles identified in ICICI Bank UK plc v Diminco NV [2014] 2 CLC 647, it would rarely be appropriate to grant a worldwide order where the respondent had no sufficient connection with England and Wales and no assets here. The respondent’s possible English domicile and English bank accounts justified intervention, but the evidence supported only a domestic freezing order. A worldwide order was not just and convenient or expedient.
4. Comity and service. There was no evidence that a domestic English order would create a public policy or juridical difficulty in Greece. The court therefore proceeded on the basis that comity did not prevent the order. Exceptional circumstances justified alternative service because prompt notification was important. Under CPR rule 6.44, the order could not authorise conduct positively contrary to Greek law; on the evidence, the proposed methods were not shown to be unlawful.
5. The court permitted Greek-law expert evidence, ordered that the application be heard in private, granted a freezing order limited to England and Wales, and authorised service of the order, originating Part 8 claim and supporting evidence by the proposed alternative means. The issue of fortification was left outstanding.