Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in Liq) v Bond (No 3) No. Scgrg-96-113

Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in Liq) and Bond Corporation, together with the liquidator of Southern Equities, are plaintiffs seeking Mareva injunctions and other orders against three named defendants and other persons who are not parties to the action. The named defendants are Craig Bond, Delores Caboche, and John Bond. The non-party respondents are Carindale Land Corporation, Fairoak, Topsfield, Hastings Finance, and William Redmond, a solicitor. The application was heard together with a separate application by John Bond to strike out or dismiss the plaintiffs’ application as an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ application was not an abuse of process for three reasons. First, the plaintiffs had a right to proceed with the application given the breakdown of settlement negotiations. Second, the delay in bringing the application was not sufficient to constitute an abuse of process. Third, the potential for financial embarrassment did not outweigh the plaintiffs’ right to seek the orders.

The court found that the plaintiffs had a substantial cause of action and a sufficiently arguable case to justify the grant of interlocutory relief. The plaintiffs’ claim for damages remained substantial despite the recovery of some monies from the sale of one of the works of art. The court also found that it was appropriate to make orders requiring the three named defendants to swear affidavits disclosing their assets.

The court found that the Mareva orders should be made against the non-party respondents as well as the named defendants. The land held by Carindale was being used to generate profits for the benefit of members of the Bond family, not for the benefit of Carindale. The court found that the interests of justice required the making of the orders.

The orders made by the court were that the application of John Bond to strike out the plaintiffs’ application as an abuse of process be dismissed and that Mareva orders be made against the named defendants and the non-party respondents. The court also ordered that the three named defendants swear affidavits as to their assets.