Spyridoula-Maria Armeniakou v James Alexander Scott Thomson

For relief under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the court must first consider whether the relief would be available in equivalent English proceedings and then whether granting it in support of foreign proceedings is expedient. A worldwide freezing order requires solid evidence of an objectively real risk that assets will be unjustifiably dissipated so that a judgment goes unsatisfied. Dishonesty is relevant only where it points to that risk. The court must assess the evidence cumulatively and distinguish legitimate business dealings from evasive dissipation. Comity may nevertheless require assets within the primary foreign jurisdiction to be left to that court, particularly where it has power to grant equivalent relief and is already seised of the substantive dispute.

The claimant pursued proceedings in Greece concerning a mediation agreement relating to the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. In support of those proceedings, an English freezing order had previously been made over the defendant’s assets in England and Wales, together with an asset disclosure order.

The claimant sought to extend the freezing order worldwide and sought further disclosure. The defendant disputed the alleged risk of dissipation, the expediency of worldwide relief under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, and the impact on the Greek proceedings and his international business.

1. Outcome. The freezing order was extended to the defendant’s assets outside England and Wales, except assets located in Greece. The application for further disclosure was postponed pending further submissions.
2. Under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the claimant had to show that the relief would be granted in equivalent English proceedings and that granting it in support of proceedings in Greece was not inexpedient. The court also had to consider personal jurisdiction, a civil claim abroad, a good arguable case, assets within the jurisdiction, a real risk of unjustified dissipation, and whether relief was just and convenient.
3. The earlier findings were not subject to issue estoppel. They concerned dissipation of assets in England and Wales, arose from different applications and evidence, and did not determine the newly raised question concerning assets abroad. The defendant was therefore entitled to contest that issue.
4. Applying the principles in Fundo Soberano de Angola v dos Santos, Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Morimoto and Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Ford, the court found solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation. The evidence showed a continuing pattern of opacity, misleading statements, concealment or minimisation of assets, and transactions which appeared designed to put assets beyond the claimant’s reach. The factors had to be assessed cumulatively.
5. The court rejected the arguments that the order would inevitably destroy the defendant’s business or cause unacceptable reputational harm. The order concerned the defendant’s assets and conduct, not the propriety or quality of the Vulcan Forged business or PYR cryptocurrency. The evidence did not establish that the order would materially interfere with ordinary business activity.
6. The defendant had not established that his domicile of origin had been displaced by a domicile of choice in Greece. The evidence showed residence in Greece, but did not sufficiently establish a settled intention to reside there indefinitely. His United Kingdom nationality, business, directorship, assets and other connections remained significant.
7. It was expedient to grant relief over assets outside Greece. The English court had personal jurisdiction, a real connecting link existed, and there was an effective sanction for breach. However, comity required assets in Greece to be left to the Greek courts, which were seised of the primary proceedings and had power to grant freezing relief over Greek assets.

The judgment records earlier interlocutory decisions in the same proceedings, including refusal of a worldwide freezing order and continuation of an English freezing order and worldwide asset disclosure order. This judgment was a first-instance decision on the claimant’s further applications.