Frederik Ali Florian Detlev Sachs v Haydn Ross Snape & Ors

For an interim proprietary freezing injunction concerning cryptocurrency, the applicant must show a serious issue to be tried, inadequacy of damages and a balance of convenience favouring relief. Cryptocurrency is at least arguably property capable of supporting such an injunction.

For a conventional freezing injunction, the applicant must show a good arguable case, meaning the same as a serious issue to be tried, an objectively assessed real risk that a future judgment will be frustrated by unjustified asset dissipation, and that relief is just and convenient. Delay is relevant but does not necessarily defeat relief where it has not materially reduced the injunction’s effectiveness.

The claimant applied without notice for proprietary and Mareva-type freezing injunctions in support of claims arising from cryptocurrency investments. He alleged that the first respondent had obtained substantial funds, acknowledged liability to repay them, and failed to do so. Claims were also advanced against related individuals, companies and persons unknown holding cryptocurrency or cryptocurrency wallets.

The court considered affidavit compliance, private hearing, delay, service on respondents within and outside the jurisdiction, substituted service on persons unknown, and the proposed cross-undertaking in damages. The central issues were whether the claimant had satisfied the requirements for proprietary and conventional freezing relief and whether the proposed orders were procedurally appropriate.

1. Relief granted. The court made the freezing order in the draft terms, restraining assets up to approximately £1.3 million, and fixed a return date of 28 April 2025.
2. For the proprietary injunction, the court applied the American Cyanamid test: a serious issue to be tried; whether damages would be an adequate remedy; and, if not, the balance of convenience, including the comparative detriment to the parties.
3. The court accepted that cryptocurrency was at least arguably property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction. The claimant’s evidence showed an arguable claim to assets transferred for investment and a realistic total value of about £1.3 million.
4. For the conventional freezing injunction, the claimant had to show a good arguable case, which Dos Santos confirmed meant the same as a serious issue to be tried; an objectively judged real risk that a future judgment would not be enforced because of unjustified dissipation; and that relief was just and convenient.
5. The apparent evasiveness concerning repayment of acknowledged liabilities established the requisite real risk of dissipation. The balance of convenience favoured the claimant. Delay was relevant but was not sufficiently substantial, nor shown to have reduced the likely effectiveness of relief, to justify refusing an otherwise appropriate injunction.
6. Service out on the Miami-based company was permitted under gateway three of CPR Practice Direction 6B. Substituted service on persons unknown was appropriate, subject to the important qualification that it should not be used where service would be ineffective under the law of the recipient’s country, reflecting comity.
7. The notarised Italian document and later witness statement could be treated together as an affidavit. No additional guarantee was required to support the claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages.

First-instance application. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.