Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Francesco Mazzagatti & Anor

Relevant fraud and dishonesty allegations should remain in a pleading where they disclose reasonable grounds and relate to the pleaded claim. Their potential effect on the court’s view of a party or on settlement pressure does not make them an abuse. Foreign-proceedings allegations may also remain where arguably relevant to the alleged fraud.

Non-party disclosure may be ordered where the documents are likely to support or adversely affect a case, are necessary for fair disposal or saving costs, and the class is sufficiently clear. A freezing injunction requires a serious issue, an objectively assessed real risk of unjustified dissipation, and justice and convenience. Delay may be decisive without new evidence. The strike-out application failed; disclosure was ordered for eight categories; the freezing and proprietary injunctions were refused.

Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd brought fraud, misappropriation and tracing claims against Francesco Mazzagatti and Francesco Dixit Dominus. Four interlocutory applications were before the court: strike-out of parts of the pleadings; non-party disclosure from H&P Advisory Ltd; joinder of Viaro Energy Ltd for that application; and worldwide freezing and proprietary injunctions.

The court considered the relevance of allegations concerning the RockRose acquisition and foreign proceedings, the statutory and procedural test for third-party disclosure, and whether delay and the evidence established a real risk of dissipation. The judgment also records that an earlier foreign-law illegality defence had been struck out in [2025] EWHC 2155 (Comm), with permission to appeal refused.

The court disposed of the applications as follows.

1. Strike out. The challenged allegations concerning the Abu Dhabi loan facilities and foreign proceedings disclosed reasonable grounds and were relevant to the pleaded fraud and funding issues. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, they were not an abuse merely because, if proved, they might affect the court’s view of the defendants or create settlement pressure. The court applied the pleading principles in Sofer v SIT [2020] EWCA Civ 699. It regarded the similar-fact discussion involving O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 AC 534 as an alternative observation. The foreign-proceedings allegations were at least arguably relevant, and their truth was a matter for trial.
2. H&P disclosure. The court applied section 34(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR rule 31.17. The documents sought in the first eight categories were potentially relevant and necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or save costs. The ninth category was not sufficiently confined to the issues and was refused.
3. Freezing injunction. API established serious issues to be tried, but not a real risk that the defendants would unjustifiably dissipate assets so as to defeat enforcement. The risk had to be supported by solid evidence and assessed cumulatively. The delay in applying was powerful because the case had not materially changed and no new evidence of dissipation had been shown. Corporate transactions did not establish personal dissipation, the financial evidence did not support vulnerability, and the remuneration was disclosed and paid in the ordinary course of business. The court also accepted that an injunction would have a catastrophic effect on Mr Mazzagatti’s business.
4. Proprietary injunction. API had not shown a serious issue that the specified assets were traceable to its property or explained why the defendants held their proceeds. The balance of convenience also favoured refusal.

The strike-out application failed, the H&P application succeeded for the first eight categories, and the worldwide freezing and proprietary injunction application failed.

This was a first-instance interlocutory decision. The judgment records that the foreign-law illegality defence had earlier been struck out by HHJ Pelling KC in [2025] EWHC 2155 (Comm); permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal.