‘Overwhelming’ case for discharge of freezing injunction

On 17 June 2025, Mr Justice Saini handed down judgment in Apollo XI Ltd v Nexedge Markets Ltd [2025] EHWC 1488 (KB), a ‘bet-the-company’ dispute founded upon covert recordings of confidential commercial meetings.

William Day and Maud Mullan acted for the successful respondent, CFD broker Nexedge Markets, instructed by Ravi Nayer, Charlotte Mears and Megan Applegarth of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

The applicant, Apollo XI, is a BVI investment vehicle that has provided the respondent with working capital under a 10 year facility agreement to expand its regulated broking business in the UK. The applicant now claims to be entitled to accelerate that loan after less than a year.

The applicant obtained the freezing injunction in reliance on a recording that it alleged showed a real risk of dissipation of assets, and has since commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court.

Accepting the respondent’s “well-structured and persuasive submissions”, Mr Justice Saini concluded that the case for discharge was “overwhelming” because:

• The Court had been “misled” as to the circumstances in which the recording had been obtained at the without notice hearing, and that there was a “strong inferential case” of “bugging” at the respondent’s office in Canary Wharf.
• The content of the recording had been “materially misrepresented” at the without notice hearing; the allegations of risk of dissipation were “fanciful”; and the case based on the recording was a “conspiracist’s theory” and “built on sand”.
• The applicant had no good arguable case that it was entitled to accelerate or terminate the loan agreement. In that regard that there had been further “concerning” non-disclosure by the applicant at the without notice hearing.

The Judge ordered that the Claimant pay the Defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis. The judgment is available on the National Archives.