Wells v Chave & Ors
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Commercial Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the continuation of a freezing order against Clive Wells and Tina Wells, initially granted to Philip Chave. The court found sufficient evidence of a risk of asset dissipation by Mr. Wells to justify the continuation of the freezing order. Additionally, although the court identified material non-disclosure by Mr. Chave, it was deemed not significant enough to discharge the freezing order. The legal principles established included the tests for continuing a freezing order, evaluating risks of asset dissipation, and addressing material non-disclosure in ex parte applications.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD :
Contents
Topic Paras Introduction 1-2 Background 3-80 Mr Chave, Mr Wells and ReAgg Ltd 4-11 The land at Dassels claim 12-25 Mr Chave’s counterclaims 26-45 The quarries claim 46-48 Mr Chave’s claim against Mrs Wells and Graham Wells 49-58 The Environment Agency prosecution 59-60 Adjournment of the trial 61 Mr Chave’s application to strike out and for summary judgment 62-64 The application before Sales J on 15 April 2014 65-71 The hearing before Hildyard J on 25 April 2014 72 The hearing before Hildyard J on 28 April 2014 73-74 The hearing before Master Bragge on 28 to 30 May 2014 75-79 Continuation of the freezing order 80-158 Risk of dissipation of assets: the law 82-84 Risk of dissipation of assets: evidence of dishonesty 85-123 The Environment Agency evidence 86-87 Mr Wells’ claims and evidence in these proceedings 88-95 Mr Wells’ dealings in chattels 96-99 The Swanage property and Mrs Wells’ payslips 100-123 Risk of dissipation of assets: dealings with assets 124-134 The charges over the properties 124-130 Information obtained from Topaz re Mr Wells’ activities 131-134 Risk of dissipation of assets: conclusion 135 Material non-disclosure 136-155 Indebtedness 143 Commercial integrity 144 Placing assets in other names 145 Fraudulent disposal of leased equipment 146 Failure of ReAgg 147 The litigation 148-151 Mrs Wells’ mortgage 152 The land at Dassels 153 The guarantee 154 Conclusion 155 Mr Chave’s cross-undertaking 156-157 The order against Mrs Wells 158 Security for costs 159-161 Further disclosure of Mr Wells’ assets 162
Introduction
The principal application before me is an application by Philip Chave (the Defendant and Part 20 Claimant) for the continuation until trial of a freezing order granted against Clive Wells (the Claimant and First Part 20 Defendant) and his wife Tina Wells (the Second Part 20 Defendant) by Sales J on 15 April 2014 and continued until now by orders made by Hildyard J on 25 April 2014 and 28 April 2014, although the order on 28 April 2014 restricted the order as against Mrs Wells. Continuation of the freezing order is opposed by Mr and Mrs Wells on three grounds: first, that there is no evidence of a risk of dissipation of assets; secondly, that the original freezing order was obtained through material non-disclosure, albeit that there is no application by them to set aside that order; and thirdly, that Mr Chave has not shown that he has sufficient assets to support his cross-undertaking in da