1/11/2019
START DATE
END DATE
5/7/2020
Marshall Diel & Myers Limited v. Andrew Crisson
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Hon. Chief Justice Hargun
Mr Adam Richards
Mr Cameron Hill
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Marshall Diel & Myers Limited (MDM) sought to collect over $280000 in legal fees from Andrew Crisson (Defendant) resulting from divorce proceedings. The defendant agreed to various payment terms including attaching earnings and securing charges on properties. MDM sought a freezing injunction to prevent dissipation of Crisson's funds after alleged non-payment. The court had to consider whether to vary the freezing injunction to allow for living and legal expenses.
SUMMARY:
The issues revolved around the distinction between a Mareva and a preservation order and whether the freezing injunction should be varied to allow for the defendant's living and legal expenses.
OUTCOMES:
The court ruled the freezing injunction aimed at preserving funds pending determination of MDM's interest would not be varied to allow for the defendant's proposed expenses. The injunction was not made under Mareva jurisdiction but aimed at preservation of funds related to the dispute.
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
Plaintiff/Claimant
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
Marshall Diel & Myers Limited v. Andrew Crisson
Marshall Diel & Myers Limited (MDM) sought to collect over $280000 in legal fees from Andrew Crisson (Defendant) resulting from divorce proceedings. The defendant agreed to various payment terms including attaching earnings and securing charges on properties. MDM sought a freezing injunction to prevent dissipation of Crisson's funds after alleged non-payment. The court had to consider whether to vary the freezing injunction to allow for living and legal expenses.