Edelstein v Brice et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Baptiste J
• Judgment Date: 24 November 2003
• Neutral Citation: AI 2003 HC 7
• Docket Number: NO. AXAHPB 200310001
• Date: 24 November 2003
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)

High Court

Baptiste, J.

NO. AXAHPB 200310001

Edelstein

and

Brice et al

Appearances:

Mr. Mark Brantley, Mr. Alex Richardson and Ms. Lisa Bass of Richardson Sinel & Associates for applicants/defendants

Mr. Ravi Bahadursingh and Mr. John Wigely, of Wigely & Associates for the claimant/respondent

Injunction - Injunction amounting to a freezing order granted by court — Prerequisites — Real risk of asset dissipation must be shown — Full and frank disclosure must be made — Evidence of urgency to substantiate the ex-parte procedure must be shown — None of these prerequisites present — Also, holograph will relied on by the applicant invalid under the Wills Act of Anguilla — Order set aside.

Baptiste J

1 The Injunction Order granted on November 14th 2003 was applied for on a Without Notice Application. The Order on its face operated and functioned like a Freezing Order. The Order was in the nature of a Freezing Order. It is settled Law that in order to excite the court's interest the Applicant must show by evidence on affidavit, a real risk of asset dissipation.

2 The affidavit of Ilana Eldestine in support of the Application for the Injunction is clearly deficient in that regard, as it shows no such risk. Sources of grounds of fear of asset dissipation have not been set out.

3 Further, an applicant seeking an Order as that sought by the claimant is under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of all matters within his or her knowledge which it is material for the court to know.

4 The claimant failed to inform the court that she had sued Mr. Crowley for palimony and lost in prior proceedings in the California Courts. She failed to inform the court that during the course of those proceedings, Mr. Crowley expressly stated that he had renounced the same holographic Will on which she now relies.

5 The claimant failed to inform the court that the holographic Will was witnessed by one person only and lacked the formalities required under the Wills Act of Anguilla.

6 There was also failure on the part of the claimant to inform the court that the various businesses in the estate of Mr. Crowley were going concerns. A blanket injunction of the kind sought could have damaging effect on the operation of those businesses.

7 These omissions, to my mind, constituted material non-disclosure, as they were critical matters which the court ought to have had before it on an ex-pane application of this nature....