Lewis v Eliades
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice McCombe |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 335 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: 1HQ/02/0051 |
| Date | 01 February 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 335 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Hon. Mr Justice Mccombe
Case No: 1HQ/02/0051
MR IAN MILL QC/MR VERNON FLYNN (instructed by Forbes Anderson for the Applicant)
MR THOMAS LOWE (instructed by Harkavys for the Respondents)
JUDGMENT: APPROVED BY THE COURT
In the High Court Queen's Bench division: Lennox Lewis- v -Panos Eliades & Ors
Mr Justice McCombe
These remarks are intended not as a criticism but by way of intended assistance to solicitors and counsel. Over the last two days, Wednesday and Thursday of this week, I have heard an application for the continuation of a freezing order, originally made in this court on a "without notice" application on 15 January 2002. The application for the order was made under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as extended by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Interim Relief Order 1997. Essentially, the application was designed to freeze assets of the defendants in anticipation of legal proceedings pending in the courts of the State of New York in the United States of America. Those proceedings are due for trial on Monday next, 4 February 2002, before a judge and jury.
On reading the papers an immediate concern arose in my mind that the application might be a tactical one, calculated to disrupt the defendants' preparation for the New York trial. Of course, one held back from any such conclusion pending hearing submissions.
In the course of argument, however, it emerged that virtually all the information relied upon by the claimant, deposed to by his New York lawyer rather than the claimant himself, turned out to have been known by that lawyer for many months, and at least since November last year. Further, it appeared that the one new piece of information (which had a substantial impact on the judge who had heard the "without notice" application, as is apparent from the note of that hearing), was probably based upon an inaccurate interpretation of answers given in an oral deposition in New York, without regard to other written information that was available.
In addition, it became apparent that the customary list of specifically identified properties, contained in the freezing order made on 15 January 2002, included several real or leasehold properties and a bank account in the name of third parties rather than in the name of any defendant. The evidence supporting the inclusion of such properties, on the basis that they might be beneficially owned by a defendant, turned out to be either flimsy or non-existent.
As a result of the inclusion of those properties, the registered proprietors or account holders were notified of the order in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braga v Equity Trust Company
...Corp. Servs. Ltd., In re, BVI C.A., February 21st, 2011, unreported, considered (17) Lewis v. Eliades (No. 1), [2002] C.P. Rep. 28, [2002] EWHC 335 (QB), referred to. (18) Lonrho plc v. Fayed (No. 2), [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1; [1991] 4 All E.R. 961, considered. (19) Mileage Conference Group, In re......