25/10/17
IVEY v GENTING CASINOS (UK) LTD [2017] UKSC 67
Summarises the correct approach to issues of dishonesty [74]. The fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.
23/10/17
CMOC v PERSONS UNKNOWN [2017] EWHC 3599 (Comm)
In principle a worldwide freezing injunction can be made against persons unknown, especially in fraud litigation where the first object is to notify a bank of the freezing injunction so that an account can be frozen and information can be obtained from the bank which may assist to identify the defendant. The defendants need to be identified as clearly as possible. On the facts they were sufficiently identified by reference to involvement in the activities said to have constituted the fraud and by reference to particular bank transfers and accounts. Alternative service on the relevant banks was also appropriate. Orders were also made against the relevant banks for provision of information.