The claimant sought a freezing injunction over assets located
outside England and Wales (shares in a Jersey company). One of the
issues in this case was whether there was a risk of dissipation
where it was uncontested that the defendant intended to dispose of
the shares and send most of the proceeds to Thailand, where he has
lived for several years. There was no evidence that use of those
sums would "simply form a seamless part of his ordinary course
of business or living" (and so there was a risk that the
assets would be inappropriately dissipated).
However, the defendant sought to argue that this did not mean
that the judgment would not be satisfied. The judge noted that
"Where, however, the transfer is not in the ordinary course of
business or living, then an intended transfer to an overseas
jurisdiction may provide sufficient basis for an injunction once
the court considers its effect on whether the judgment will be met.
The hurdle does not appear overly onerous".
