In this case, the judge held that no risk of dissipation had been made out by the claimant. Of particular relevance to that decision was the fact that there was close supervision of the defendant's businesses by lenders, given the highly geared nature of his companies' investments (although the judge hadn't been taken to the banking documentation, she said that this was an "obvious truth"). Furthermore, the companies' accounts were regularly checked by the lenders and accountants. It was also relevant that the companies' lending had been secured by a personal guarantee from the defendant. His lawyers had argued that he would not act to destroy his business and make himself bankrupt.

A further significant factor was that the defendant had had over 3 years to dissipate assets had he chosen to do so.

COMMENT: The judgment did not cite the decision of Enercon v Enercon (see Weekly Update 12/12), but in that case too it was held that, as that the defendant was audited annually by Deloitte and had "substantial and ongoing relationships with its banks", those factors counted against a finding of a risk of dissipation (and in that case there had also been delay in applying for an order).