KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) QATAR INVESTMENT AND PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT HOLDING COMPANY | ||
(2) HIS HIGHNESS SHEIKH HAMAD BIN ABDULLAH AL THANI | Claimants | |
- and - | ||
(1) PHOENIX ANCIENT ART SA | ||
(2) ALI ABOUTAAM | ||
(3) HICHAM ABOUTAAM | ||
(4) ROLAND ANSERMET | ||
(5) PETRARCH LLC d/b/a ELECTRUM | Defendants |
____________________
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR PHILIP JONES (instructed by Mackrell Solicitors appeared on behalf of the First, Second and Third Defendants
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE KERR:
Introduction
Background
Open Court and Sitting in Private
Submissions of The Phoenix Defendants
Merits of the Application
"As Mr Tapper puts it, it is surprising 'that Mr Aboutaam [the third defendant] sees little point in valuing his father's collection or indeed in understanding the inventory in circumstances where he practises in art dealing and finds himself in a heavily indebted position.' I reject entirely his suggestion that the Phoenix Defendants can justify their refusal to give proper disclosure on the grounds of impecuniosity when they have been sitting for years on stock they formerly valued at US$90 million without a complete and transparent account of what they have done to realise the value of those objects."
"It is not generally the rule that delay in applying for a freezing injunction or an extension of a freezing injunction is a bar in itself to obtaining relief. It may mean in some cases that there is no real risk of dissipation and that if the claimant had seriously thought there was, an application would have been made earlier, but that cannot be said in the present case. I agree with the observations on this topic made by Flaux J in Madoff Securities International Limited v Raven [2011] EWHC 3102 (Comm). If the court is satisfied on the evidence that there remains a real risk of dissipation, it should grant an order notwithstanding delay, even if only limited assets are ultimately frozen by it."
Undertaking in Damages
Scope and Timing of Asset Disclosure Orders
Conclusion