Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

For an interim freezing order supporting foreign proceedings, the claimant must establish personal jurisdiction, foreign civil proceedings, a good arguable case, assets within the jurisdiction, a real risk of unjustified dissipation, and that relief is not inexpedient, just or convenient.

The good arguable case threshold is equivalent to a serious issue to be tried and a real prospect of success. The intrusive nature of freezing relief is addressed through the other safeguards, including the dissipation and justice requirements, rather than by imposing a heightened merits threshold.

A real risk of dissipation requires solid evidence assessed cumulatively. Dishonesty, opaque business arrangements and hostile motives may be relevant, but they do not suffice without evidence connecting them to a risk of putting assets beyond enforcement.

The claimant sought continuation of an interim freezing order and worldwide asset disclosure order made in support of intended proceedings in Greece arising from a divorce mediation agreement. The order froze the defendant’s assets in England and Wales up to £11 million and required worldwide disclosure.

The claimant relied on Greek-law claims concerning cryptocurrency promised under the agreement, including misrepresentation and breach of contract. The defendant disputed the merits, denied responsibility for restrictions placed on cryptocurrency, challenged alleged non-disclosure at the without-notice hearing, and opposed any worldwide freezing order.

The court had to decide whether the freezing order should continue, whether the applicant had a good arguable case and whether there was a real risk of unjustified dissipation. It also considered alleged breaches of full and frank disclosure, the late evidence, and the proposed worldwide extension.

1. Outcome. The freezing order was continued. The application to extend it worldwide was refused at that stage. The asset disclosure order remained in force as varied, with the legal issues concerning its scope left open for further submissions.
2. The court applied the established section 25 framework. The claimant had to show personal jurisdiction, foreign civil proceedings, a good arguable case, assets in England and Wales, a real risk of unjustified dissipation, that relief was not inexpedient, and that it was just and convenient.
3. Following Isabel dos Santos v Unitel SA, the good arguable case test required a case more than barely capable of serious argument, but not necessarily one with a better than 50 per cent chance of success. That test was equivalent to the serious-issue-to-be-tried and real-prospect-of-success tests. The invasive nature of freezing relief did not justify a heightened merits threshold; it was relevant to the other safeguards.
4. The claimant had a good arguable case in misrepresentation concerning the EDV tokens and in contract concerning the blocked PYR tokens. The contractual EDV claim based on responsibility for delay in issuance was not established to the required standard.
5. There was solid evidence of a real risk of unjustified dissipation. The court considered cumulatively the opacity of the business structure, misleading company accounts, evidence of dishonesty concerning assets and EDVs, unilateral movement or blocking of cryptocurrency, hostility arising from the divorce, and the defendant’s apparent resentment of the settlement obligations. Offshore structures alone would not have sufficed.
6. The alleged failures of full and frank disclosure did not justify discharge. The omission of the Preliminary Agreement was innocent and insufficiently material; the other complaints were either immaterial, apparent from the evidence, or depended on disputed facts unsuitable for summary determination.
7. It was procedurally unfair to extend the freezing order worldwide when the application was raised only in the claimant’s skeleton argument on the day before the hearing, without adequate evidence or opportunity to respond. Any such application required formal notice, evidence and further submissions.