Parisa Seif Amir Hosseini v Hamli Company Limited & Anor

Interim freezing relief requires a serious issue to be tried, or, for a non-proprietary order, a good arguable case, together with a real risk of dissipation or secretion and a conclusion that the relief is just and convenient. The serious-issue and good-arguable-case thresholds are equivalent.

A passport order is an exceptional restriction on liberty and must be exercised cautiously. The applicant must show a good cause of action, probable cause to believe that the respondent is about to leave the jurisdiction unless restrained, and material prejudice to the prosecution of the claim. Any order must remain proportionate and may be limited pending the respondent’s opportunity to attend.

The applicant sought proprietary and non-proprietary freezing injunctions, asset-disclosure orders and an order requiring the second respondent to surrender his passport and remain within the jurisdiction.

She alleged that consultancy earnings generated by her work had been paid into the first respondent company on the second respondent’s assurances that the funds would be held for her benefit. The respondents did not attend the hearing and were unrepresented. The evidence was untested, and the court made no final findings of fact.

The issues were whether there was a serious issue to be tried or a good arguable case, whether there was a real risk of dissipation such that damages were inadequate, whether it was just and convenient to grant freezing relief, and whether the requirements for a passport order were satisfied.

1. The applications for proprietary and non-proprietary freezing injunctions were granted. The applicant had established a serious issue to be tried and a good arguable case. On the asserted facts, there were arguable claims that the funds were held on constructive trust and were recoverable by restitution for unjust enrichment.

2. For the proprietary freezing injunction, the court applied the American Cyanamid approach: serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages and, if necessary, the balance of convenience. For the non-proprietary order, United v Dos Santos established that the good-arguable-case test was the same as the serious-issue threshold. Both forms of relief also required a real risk of dissipation or secretion and a conclusion that relief was just and convenient.

3. The risk of dissipation was established by the alleged threats to leave and disappear, the respondent’s practice of holding substantial cash, alleged dishonest conduct involving false documents, his relatively weak connection with the jurisdiction and limited liquid assets, and the heightened emotional circumstances. The court treated these matters as outweighing the countervailing incentive arising from his anticipated permanent residence.

4. A passport order was justified only with caution because it restricted liberty. Applying the principles summarised in Umbrella Care Limited v Rajah, the applicant had shown a good cause of action and probable cause to believe that the respondent might leave the jurisdiction, with resulting material prejudice. The order was proportionate but was limited to the return date, or earlier compliance with the disclosure requirements, when the issue could be reconsidered with the respondent present.

5. The court placed no weight on the submission that the respondent was involved in an opaque network of companies. No final factual findings were made.