The case applies the established three-part test for freezing orders (good arguable case, danger of dissipation, balance of convenience) in the context of alleged dilution of corporate shareholdings and misrepresentation of purchase price. Where allegations involve serious dishonesty such as unauthorised share transfers and falsification of sale documents, the nature of the dishonesty itself may ground the inference of a real risk of asset dissipation, without requiring direct evidence of a positive intention to frustrate judgment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.