Andrew Butler KC enjoys further success in latest round of Wurm v Amini litigation

Andrew Butler KC has enjoyed further success in the long-running and high-profile dispute between Vanessa Wurm and members of the Amini family.

Shortly before obtaining judgment against Kash Amini and his company, Ms Wurm obtained a freezing injunction against his brother Bahador and two companies owned and operated by him, at a hearing at which she was represented by Adrian Carr, also of Tanfield Chambers. The central allegation was that Bahador and the companies had been the recipients of at least some of the substantial sums Ms Wurm had given to Kash Amini in the course of their relationship.

The freezing injunction was continued by consent at a return date, with Bahador Amini reserving his right to apply to discharge it.

That application to discharge was duly made and was heard by HHJ Parfitt, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, on 13 February 2025. By a judgment dated 27 February 2025, HHJ Parfitt dismissed the application.

The judgment is of interest because HHJ Parfitt was required to address certain practical issues which are not uncommon in such situations.

First, he considered where the burden lay in circumstances where a freezing order is continued by consent on the return day, with the Defendant reserving the right to apply to discharge it subsequently. He characterised the position as being that it was for the Defendant (the applicant to the Discharge Application) to identify those respects in which it alleged the order should be set aside or varied and why, with the Claimant continuing to bear the overall burden of maintaining their order in the light of the points raised.

Second, he had to deal with a situation in which a substantial amount of material was included in the bundle by the Defendants, without having formally been put in evidence. He held that, while it would be wrong to disregard the evidence, the weight which could be attached to it was diminished by the circumstances in which it had been put before the Court. He held that it contributed to “an overarching lack of frankness and candour on the part of the [Defendants].”

Third, he emphasised that the “just and convenient” test was a separate stage of the test for the grant of an injunction and should be considered separately from it, rather than merely as an adjunct to the first two stages of the test (good arguable case, and fear of dissipation of assets).

Fourthly, and on costs, he followed the emerging practice of ordering that, where a freezing injunction is continued, costs should follow the event – the position in this respect contrasting with the approach taken with conventional injunctions, in which costs will usually be in the case.

Andrew was instructed by Sajjad Ahmed of Landmark Legal LLP, whose diligence in reviewing the voluminous quantity of late-served evidence was instrumental in the outcome.