StophoneonHarveod LP " iebiry Gee tendon EC2M 75H 428 20 73294622 Fax 44207228 7100 Oxo. 64 hance Lane wwwstiegaicon STEPHENSON HARWOOD For the attention of: emo eifion.morris@shlegal.com Mr Jonathan Ball ovectine +44 20 7809 2258 Ms Farah Mukaddam Decttax +44 20 7003 8439 Norton Rose Fulbright oureeterence 3403\979\01-53-01415 3 More London Riverside vourreteronee JBAL/FMUK/LN80307 London SE1 2AQ United Kingdom Mr Thomas Raudkivi WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin de Colombettes 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland BY EMAIL 5 January 2015 Dear Sirs Case No. D2014-2148: GFH Capital Limited (the “Complainant") v David Lawrence Haigh (the "Respondent") We refer to your cease and desist letter of 10 December 2014 (the "Cease and Desist Letter"), We also refer to our letter to your client dated 30 November 2014, to which we have not received a response. The Cease and Desist Letter contains various allegations which we will deal with in turn below. However, these allegations are clearly just one piece of a much larger jigsaw given the background to the dispute and we therefore set this out in detail below. For the sake of clarity, we shall respond to your letter as per your subheadings. 2 Background 1.1 Our client was arrested on 18 May 2014 in Dubai and remains in custody with Bur Dubai Police Station. To date, our client has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing and is presently preparing, or indeed has already filed, various countersuits against the Complainant. 1.2 As you are fully aware, yet fail to mention in the Cease and Desist Letter and your misguided request for arbitration in your complaint to the World Intellectual Property Organisation ("WIPO Complaint"), there is currently on-going litigation in the Dubai Courts, Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (the "DIFC Court"), the English High Court (Commercial Court) and Guernsey Court brought by your client. 1.3. Both the DIFC Court and the English Commercial Court have Issued interim freezing orders on our client's global assets (see enclosed Annex 1 and Annex 2) Lomuveyrosz6sso.3 omices ute ons Kong Shanghai Singapore Asrociated office Bucharest Yangon Stephenson Harwood LP is inted lity partnership else in England and Wales wth egstaesrumberOC272597. ee authored and aula by the Soir Ragulaton Authority. A isto the member and thei professional qulifeatinsis open fornapeton at the ins principal off, 1 Finsbury Gras, Londo The torm paren is sad referta a member of Stephenton Harwood LF, VAT number GB 243 3939 SA 75H14 2a 2.2 23 24 2.5 2.6 3 Ba STEPHENSON HARWOOD (the "Orders"). Due to his frozen bank accounts and his incarceration in Dubai, our client has been unable to make payments of his financial obligations through circumstances outside of his control We confirm that our client is contesting the Orders and seeking to set these aside in due course. This is taking time due to the fact that our client remains in prison, Claims against your client As a result of your client's deceit, our client has been detained for almost eight ‘months without charge or questioning and with no access to lawyers save for ten minutes a week ~ a breach of our client's fundamental human rights. As your client is fully aware, its actions are now subject to an English High Court of Justice claim against Hisham Al Rayes, Jinesh Patel, Peter Gray, GFH Capital Limited and Gulf Finance House BSC (Claim No. HQ14x04069). The claim sets out the dishonesty and deceit by your client along with conspiracy to injure, amongst others, in luring our client to Dubai on the pretence that he was to discuss a professional opportunity and that your client would settle all his outstanding salary commission and expenses ~ this was nothing more than an abuse of process to bring our client under Dubai law, a legal system which favours the complainant. You have also failed to note the DIFC claim issued by our client for the non- payment of shares and bonuses and the loss of share capital due to market manipulation (Claim no. CFI-034-2014). Your letter has also failed to note the defence filed in the DIFC proceedings and the circa GBP 5 million intended counter-claim noted In said defence by our client against your client, which is on hold due to the fact our client cannot pay for the court fees - again as a result of the actions of your client. Further you have failed to illustrate that our client and this firm have reported your client to various law enforcement agencies for what our client believes to be: 2.6.1 theft of client monies; 2.6.2 fraud; 2.6.3 money-laundering; and 2.6.4 various breaches of UN and US sanctions against Iran, Intellectual property and domain name rights Your Cease and Desist Letter is confused at best; however we shall endeavour to provide an appropriate response. We highlight the relevant discrepancies below.3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 37 3.8 3.9 3.10 STEPHENSON HARWOOD We draw your attention to Annex 3 of your own Cease and Desist Letter. As demonstrated, our client purchased the domain name www.afh-capital.com (the "Domain Name") on 28 February 2011. As per Annex 1 of your Cease and Desist Letter, the date of registry of the GFH Capital Limited ("GFH Capital") logo was 18 months later, on 29 November 2012. We fail to understand how our client can be in breach of the GFH Capital trademark ~ registration number 11060531 ("Trademark") given that our client registered the Domain Name before the Trademark was registered In addition, you mention “Our Client /s the registered proprietor of a GFH Capital trade mark (registration number: 11060531) in the European Union. See the registration details at Annex 1. It also has pending and registered trade marks for 'GFH' in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and India". This European Community trade mark is of no relevance in the Middle East, which is where our client was employed and where he remains, and where the relevant company is based. Your client is GFH Capital, however the trademark applications in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and India have been rendered and are owned by 'Gulf Finance House BSC’ ~ the two are separate entities regulated by separate financial authorities. We find it grossly inappropriate that within an intellectual property dispute (in which you claim that our client has misused the said property) that you would 3.7.1 use trademark registrations from another company to attempt to claim that our client (who was not an employee of that company) Is responsible for any breach whatsoever; and 3.7.2 attempt to mislead the World Intellectual Property Organisation In such away. We trust this was an oversight only. Nevertheless, whilst no proof of these trademarks is included in your Cease and Desist Letter for reasons we do not understand, we are of the assumption that they are demonstrated in Annex 9 of your WIPO Complaint. We note with interest that the status of several of these trademarks, including the United Arab Emirates is "pending" since 2008, some 7 years ago, and In actual fact, the only registered trademark is for India. You then state that your “client also has a domain name registration for ". Once again, this website belongs to an entity called ‘Gulf Finance House BSC’ and not GFH Capital.BALL 3.12 3.13 44 42 43 44 STEPHENSON HARWOOD (Once again, we find it unacceptable that you would attempt to provide evidence pertaining to a completely separate company under the guise of your client, misrepresenting the real nature of your argument. In any case, we note from the aforementioned website that Gulf Finance House refers to "A New Brand... a New Era” and has copyright for 2015. We fail to see how the Domain Name registered by our client on 2011 can possibly infringe a 2015 copyright particularly for a company that Is not actually named GFH Capital In light of the above, please can you: 3.13.1 clarify as to who your client is and what are your instructions? 3.13.2 provide details of the trade mark registrations that you claim your client hhas pending for "GFH" in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and India. Misuse of your client's website You allege that our client has "engaged in activities which amount to a serious infringement of our client's intellectual property rights", without particularising: 4.1.1 the nature of the intellectual property rights you are relying on; and 4.1.2 how such intellectual property rights have been infringed. In order for us to respond to these allegations of IP infringement, please provide proper details of the IP rights you allege have been infringed and how. Furthermore, please can you explain what serious financial loss your client has or is likely to suffer from the alleged damage to its reputation from our client's alleged statements which would enable It to bring a claim for defamation before the English courts? Nevertheless, our client denies that he has tarnished your “client's registered trade mark" and your "client's reputation" for the following reasons: 4.4.1. Our client has made no use of your trade mark on the webpage; 4.4.2. The articles that the Domain Name was redirected to were not written by our client but by third parties. If you wish to argue their content, please contact the relevant editors; and 4.4.3 Our client has been using the Domain Name for his own personal use, including diverting it to his personal website which is of a primarily charitable nature. He has not been using it for any commercial purpose; and age45 5a 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 STEPHENSON HARWOOD 4.4.4 The Domain Name Is not being used by "third parties" as you seek to purport. As a gesture of goodwill, our client is happy to include a disclaimer on the website detailing the lack of connection to your client and that his website Is not in any way connected to GFH Capital and even a link to your client's website which we believe to be www.gfh-cap.com, once the suspension by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN') Is lifted. Alleged breaches of employment contract and fiduciary duties Our client denies that he was given control of GFH Capital's web presence during the course of his role. In addition, we fail to understand how any reputable company would request that its Legal Counsel, and subsequently its Deputy CEO, carry out such work. This would be an entirely independent role and dealt with by someone qualified to do so and within your client's IT department. This notion does not seem to correlate however, with your previous statements that your client's domain portfolio are all registered in your client's name by its IT department. Please clarify this point. With regards to the reimbursement of expenses incurred in registering and renewing the Domain Name, we are surprised that your client has not made you aware of the current proceedings whereby our client states that expenses were ‘owing to him or, if this is not the case, you have once again perhaps wished to mislead the WIPO. We also draw to your attention once again to the fact that our client purchased the Domain Name on 28 February 2011. At that time, your client wes not known. as GFH Capital Limited. Instead, your client was called Injazat Capital Limited (as you have clearly evidenced in Annex 4 of your Cease and Desist Letter whereby you include his employment contract dated 13 January 2008). It was then rebranded as G Capital on 28 April 2011 to shake off associations with your client's parent company, Gulf Finance House BSC. It was only the following year, on 22 July 2012 (some 17 months after our client had registered the Domain Name) that your client even adopted the name GFH Capital Limited. We fail to see how our client is in breach of any trademarks, his employment contract or any fiduciary duties when he created the Domain Name whilst working for a company with an entirely different name and who subsequently through not one, but two, rebrands adopted the name GFH Capital Limited. Notably, your letter refers to "actionable breaches of... [our client's] professional obligations", but fails to identify which obligations have been breached and how, in circumstances where our client no longer acts for your client. Any acts of our client with regards to the Domain Name, since his termination, cannot constitute breaches of his employment contract, which had been terminated earlier. Page s5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 STEPHENSON HARWOOD Despite the above, we note that as per the DFSA Rules, the employee (your client) also has a duty towards its employees and consumers. The Principles for Authorised Firms as per Article 4.2 of the DFSA Rulebook General Module ("GEN") states: Principle 2 - Due skill, care and diligence 4.2.2 In conducting its business activities, an Authorised Firm must act with due skill, care and diligence. Principle 3 - Management, systems and controls 4.2.3. An Authorised Firm must ensure that its affairs are managed effectively and responsibly by its senior management. An Authorised Firm must have adequate systems and controls_to_ensure, as far as is_reasonably practical, that it legislation applicable ht . Principle 11 - Compliance with high standards of corporate governance 4.2.11 An yrised Firm must hi 1ce_ framework as appropriate to the nature, scale and complexity of its business and structure, which is adequate to promote the sound and prudent management and oversight of the Authorised Firm's business and to protect the interests of its customers and stakeholders. For the avoidance of doubt, our client denies any breach of any DFSA regulations. By contrast, our client has reported your client for various breaches of DFSA regulations and these matters are on-going. Indeed on a cursory glance of the above and noting that your client's Senior Executive Officer was at the material times a Hisham Alrayes and then a Jinesh Patel, perhaps it is they that are in breach of the above core principles. In addition, if in fact the owner of the Domain Name was your client, please could you clarify as to why your client attempted on two separate occasions to purchase the Domain Name from our client? Notwithstanding the above, our client was not prepared to sell the Domain Name, he agreed that your client could use the Domain Name subject to your client: 5.11.1 paying annual fees for registration; 5.11.2 paying annual fees for hosting; and 5.11.3 abiding by the standard terms and conditions applicable to the domain service and hosting provided.5.12 5.13 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 67 7a STEPHENSON HARWOOD However, your client has failed to pay such fees, which as mentioned previously, now form part of the expenses claimed in the English High Court claim (HQ14x04069). Our client has contacted the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England and asked them to update their records so that our client is not listed as an employee of your client, Misuse of your client's Twitter Account You refer to the Twitter account @GFHCapital ("Twitter Account"), which Is currently suspended as per your Cease and Desist Letter. Our client denies that he had full control of the Twitter Account as it was used and updated by an external Twitter consultancy company who tweeted via the ‘Twitter Account and various GFH Capital staff and external consultants. ‘Once again, you have failed to fully substantiate your allegations and we fail to understand what confidential correspondence your Cease and Desist Letter refers to, nor are we aware of any such occurrences. Given the above, we request that you provide the following: 6.4.1 full details of the allegedly confidential information published on the ‘Twitter Account so that we can respond to this allegation; and 6.4.2 full details of the personal data of Mr Jinesh Patel and Mr Hisham Al Rayes that you allege were published on the Twitter Account in breach of data protection legislation so that we are in a position to respond to this allegation. Please also state which legislation you rely on regarding this allegation. Whilst on the subject of Twitter, we would like to bring the matter of your client's PR representatives, Woodstock Leasor, to the attention of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We note with interest that despite your allegations against our client for defamation, it is in fact the Twitter accounts of your client's PR representatives, @WoodstockLeasor and @SLeasor, that have been blocked by Twitter for "participating in abusive behaviour" towards our client (Annex 3). Twitter have found the accounts in question to be in breach of Twitter policy ‘owing to the harassment of our client and have consequently seen Fit to suspend the accounts indefinitely, provided herewith at Annex 4. Summary From the above, it is clear that your client's allegations about the Twitter Account and Domain Name are just a sideshow to the more substantial allegations between the parties relating to allegations of financial irregularity, ese?STEPHENSON HARWOOD deceit and misconduct, which are the subject of multiple proceedings in both Dubai and the UK. 7.2 Given that both the Domain Name and the Twitter Account are currently suspended, there Is no urgency to resolve the dispute regarding them at this stage. 7.3. Instead, we propose that such matters are put on hold until the substantive proceedings are resolved. As such, we are sending @ copy of this letter to WIPO asking them to stay any WIPO proceedings arising from the Complaint until the substantive proceedings commenced between the parties are resolved. We look forward to hearing from you before 8 January 2014, in order that we can respond to your WIPO Complaint by the extended deadline of 11 January 2014. Yours faithfully SPephanson Harnoool uP ephenson Harwood LLP PagetAnnex 1Claim No: CFI 02012014 ‘THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE. BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE SIR JOHN CHADWICK BETWEEN GFH CAPITAL LIMITED Applicant and DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH Respondent FREEZING ORDER, PENAL NOTICE IF YOU DAVID LAWRENGE HAIGH DISOBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BEIN ‘CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS THE RESPONDENT TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY ‘ALSO BE HELD TO BEIN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE THEIR ASSETS SEIZED. ‘THIS ORDER 4. This Is a Freezing Order made agelnst David Lawrence Haigh (the Defendant) on 17 June 2014 by the Deputy Chief Justice Sir John Chadwick, continuing an interim Freezing Order mada on 3 June 2044, on the epplication of GFH Capita! Limited (the Glalmant). The Judge read the Afidavits listed ia Schedule A and accepted the undertakings set out in Schedule B at the end of this Order. 2. This order was made al a hearing on notice to the Defendant. The Defendant has a fight ‘to apply to the Court to vary or discharge the order — see paragraph 12 below.FREEZING ORDER 4 [Untl further order of the Court, the Defendant must not a (2) remove from the DIFC any of his atse!s which are in the DIFC up to the value of USS 5 million (the “Amount’) or {n eny way dispose of, dea! with or diminish tha value of any of his assets ‘whether they are in or outside the DIFC up to the same velue, Peregraph 3 applies to all ihe Defendant's essats whether or not they are In his own ‘name and whether they ere aclely or jointly ewned. For the purpose of this order the Defendant's assets Include any asset which he has the power, directly or indirectly, fo dispose of or deal with as I it wers his ow. The Defendant Is to be regarded as having such power #f @ third party holds or controls the asset In accordance with his direct or Indirect Instructions. ‘Tals prohibition Includes the following assets in parileular: fu} @ @ 4) © 8) he property knowm as Dubal/Al Szheb 4, Apartment 1803, Dubel, or the net sale ‘money eller payment of any mortgages If has been sold; ‘any money in bank account number 035-360486-131 held at HSBC Bank, PO ox 66, Dubal, in the name of *Lincoln Associates”, or auch other name as may be applicable; ‘any mongy in benk sccount number 080-073324-050 held at HSBC Bank, PO Box 68, Dubel, in the name of “Lincoln Azsoclales’, or such other name as may bbe applicable; eny money held in bank account number 860852512, sort code 60-17-11, held at Netwast, Putney Branch, United KIngdom, in the name *Miinel Limited’, or such other name as may be applicable; ‘any money held in bank account number 0503675, sort cods 08-93,00, hel! st ‘Cooperative Bank, 1 Balloon Street, Manchester, United Kingdom, In the neme "GPW + Co Ltd", or such other name as may be applicable; ‘any money held In the bank account held at Cooperative Bank with IBAN: GB71 CPBK 0891 0904 2877 71 In the name "David Murray’, or such other name as may be appropriate;® a) ‘any mongy in the bank account held at HSBC Bank Middle East Limited with ‘account number 035380488001 and IBAN AEO60200000035360486001 in the name “David Lawrence Helgh’, or such ather name os may be appropriate; and ‘Any assets of Sport Capital Limited (a company Incorporated in Guemsey) end the shares (or any interest in those sharee) of that company. It the total velua free of charges or other securities (unencumbered value’) of the Defendant's assets in the DIFC exceeds the Amount, the Defendant mey Femove any of those assets from the DIFC or may dispose of or des! with them 80 Jong es the total unencumbered value of tha Defendants assets stil in the DIFC remains above the Amount. If the total unencumbered value of the Defendants assets in the DIFC does nat exceed the Amount, the Defendant must not remove any of those assets from the DIFC and must not dispose of or deal with ary of them. i the Defendent has other asseis outside the DIFC, he may dispose of or des! with those asset outskde the DIFC so long 2s the total unencumbered value cf ail his essels ‘whether in or outsice the remains above the Amount. PROVISION OF INFORMATION 7. a) @ Unless paregraph (2) apples, and to the extent that he has not already done #2 by the date of this Onder, the Defendant must as soon as he Is reasonably able to do so after service of this order and to the best of his ebfity inform the Claimants legal representatives of all his assets worldwide exceeding US$100,000 in value whether in his own name or not and whether aolely or Jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets. {the provision of sry ofthis Information fs likely to Incriminals the Defendant, be ey be entitled to refuse to provide i, but Is recommended lo take legal advice before refusing to provide the Information. Wrongful refusal to provide the Information is conlempt of court and may render the Defendant fable to be Imprisoned, fined or have his sssets selzed.‘The Defendant must, to the exten! that he has not already done so by the date of this Order and as soon as he is reasonably able to do so, swear and serve on the Clatmant's legal representatives an affidavit setting aut the sbove Information. EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ORDER 10. Exceptions, a) @) @ © ‘This onder does not prohibit the Defendant from spending US$2,050 amonth towards his ordinary ving expenses if nol in custody, and also a reasonable ‘sum on legal advics and representation. But before spending any money the Defendant must lel'the Ctsimants legal representatives where the money is to ‘come fram. “This order does not prohibit the Defendant from dealing wih or disposing of any ‘of his assets Inthe ordinary and proper course of business. ‘The Defendant may agree with the Claimant's legal representatives thet the above spending fits should be Increased or thet this order should be vatied in, any other respect, but any agreement must be In wring. ‘The Defendant may apply for permission fo fund a bet concition upon giving notice to the Claimant's legal representatives of the amount sought and the ‘source of such funding. Such application to be dealt with on the papers. ‘The order wil cease to have effect Ifthe Defendant: (© provides secunty by paying the Amount nto Court, to be held tothe order ‘ofthe Court; oF (©) makes provision for securlly in thet sum by enother method agreed with the Claimant's tegal representatives, Costs in the case.VARIATION OR DISCHARGE OF THIS ORDER 41. Anyone served with of notified ofthis order may apply to the Court at any lime to vary or lecharge this onder (or so much of It as affects that person), but they must fst inform the Claimant's legat representatives. if any evidence fs to be relied upon in support of tha application, the substance of must be communicated In writing to the Clement's legal representalives in advance. INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDER 12, A Defendant/Respondent who is an Individual who fs ordered not to do something must not do it himealf or in any olher way. He must not do it through others: acting on his behalf or on his Instructions or with his encouregement. PARTIES OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT Effect of this order 13. Its a contempt of court for eny person notified of this order knowingly to assist in or permits breach of this order. Any person doing sa may be imprisoned, fined or have their assate setzed, Set-off by banks 14. This Injunction doas not prevent any bank from exercising any right of sel off K may hhave In respect of any faciily which It gave to the respondent before It was notified of this order, Withdrawals by the Defendant 15. No bank need enguire as to the application or proposed application of any money withdraw by the Defendant If the withdrawal appears to be permitted by thie order.Persons outside the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts 16, Persons outside the jurlsdiction of the DIFC courts a @ Except as provided in paragraph (2) below, the terms of this order do not affect or concem anyone outside the jurisdiction of this court. ‘The terms of thie arder will affect the fotlowing persons in @ couniry oF stale outside the Jurisdiction of this court: (®) _ the Defendant or his oficer or agent appointed by power of altemey, (®)—anyperson who: is subject lo the jurisdiction of this court; @) hes been given viritien notice of this order at his residence or place of business within the jurisdiction of this court; and () Is aba o prevent acts or omissions outside the jurisdiction ofthis court which constitute or assist in a breach of the terms of this onder; and (©) eny other parson, only to the extent that this order Is dectared ‘enforceable by or fs enforced by = court in hat country or state, ‘Assats located outside the jurisdiction of the DIFC courts 47. Nothing tn this order shall, In respect of assets located outside the Jurisdiction of the DIFC courts, prevent any thie party from complying with: a) ‘what it reasonebly belloves to be its obligations, contractual or otherwise, under the laws and obligetions of the country of stale in which those essets ere situated or under the proper Inw of any conlract between tiself and the Defendant; and ‘any orders of the courts of that country or stale, provided that reasonable notice ‘of any epplication for such an order is given to the Cioimants legal representatives.48, (1) Subject fo paragraph (2), the Cleimant shell nol, without the permission of the ‘Court, seek to enforce this order In any Jurisdiction outside of the DIFC; end (2) paragraph (1) shalt not spply to enforcement ofthis order in the Emirate of Dubel ‘or England and Wales or the Grilsh Virgin Islands or Guemsey or Nevis or ‘Switzerland. (COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT ‘All communications te the Court about this order should be sent fo: Ground Floor, Bulking 4, Gate District, DIFC, UAE ‘Telephone: +971 4 427 3333 Foxe 9871 4273 330 ‘Emall: realstrv@cifccourts. se ‘The offices are open between 10am fo Spm, Sunday to Thursday (excluding Public Holidays) Issued Maha AiMshairi Judicial Officer Date: 18 June 2014 At 4pmSCHEDULE A AFFIDAVITS ‘The Applicant relied on the follwing affidavits— [name] number of alfidavi] [date swom] [ed on behalt off (1) Jinesh Patel, First Afidevt, 26 May 2014, Cialmant (2) James Sinclar, Fst Afldevt, 15 May 2014, Claknant (3) Emma Kettieton, First Affidavit, 23 May 2014, Claimant (4) Merk Teylor, Firat Affidavit, 23 May 2014, Claimant (©) Nicholas Bortman, Fist Afidevit,2 June 2014, Claimant (6) Philp Rocher, Fist Afidevt, 2 June 2014, Claimant (7) Tiernan Fitzgibbon, First Afidewit 2 June 2014, Clelmant (8) Jinesh Patel, Second AMidavit, 8 June 2014, Claimant (6) Plers Plumpire, First Afidevt, 13 June 2014, Claimant SCHEDULE B UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO THE COURT BY THE APPLICANT (1) I'he Court feter finds that this order has caused lass to the Defendant, and decides thal the Defendant should be compensated for thet loss, the Cisimant wil comply with any order the Court may make. (2) Anyone notified of this order will be given a copy of It by the Claimants {egal representatives. (3) The Cieimant wit pay the reasonable costs of anyone other than the Defendant ‘which have been incurred ea a result of this order Including the casts of finding ‘out whether thal person holds any of the Defendants assets and if the Court Isler finds that this orfer has caused such person loss, and decides that suchperson should be compensated for tht loss, the Cielmant will comply with any ‘order he Courk may make. (4) if this onder ceases to have effect (for example, if the Defendant provides: ‘secudiy) the Claimant wil Immediately take all reasonable steps to inform In writing anyone to whom he has given notice of this onder, or who he has. ‘ressonable grounds for supposing may act upon this arder, that lt has ceased lo haveeffect. (©) The Claimant wil not without the permission of the Court use any Information obisined as a result of this onder for the purpose of eny chil or caiminal ‘Proceedings, ether in the DIFC or in any other jurisdiction, other than this claim, NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES “The Applicant's lagal representatives are: Peter Grey ‘Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Bulg , Level + ‘Dubal Intemational Financial Centre: P.O. Bax 506654, Dubsl, UAE Tek +871 4704 6805 Mobile: +071 503513 247 Fax +971 4370 0388 PGravipatbsondyan comAnnex 2PENAL NOTICE IFYOU DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH DISOBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF ‘COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS THE RESPONDENT TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY ALSO BE HELD TO BE IN ‘CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE THEIR ASSETS SEIZED. 2014 Foto 956 INTHE Wigs COURT OF JUSTICE {QUEEN'S BENCH DIMSiON) ‘COMMERCIAL COURT ga BA efor the Honourable Mr use Maes Stee Dated 13 August 2014 BETWEEN: GGFR CAPITAL UTED (2 company registered in the Dubai International Financial Centre) lnant and: DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH Defendant FREEZING ORDER THIS ORDER 1. This is 2 Freezing Order made against David Lawrence Haigh the Defendant’) on 13 August 2014 by the Honourable Mr Justice Males on the application of GFH Capital Limited (theClaimant’). The Judge read the Affidavits listed in Schedule A and accepted the under ‘set out in Schedule B at the end of this Order. This order was made at a hearing without notice to the Defendant but of which he was notified and at which he was represented. The Defendant has a right to apply to the Court to vary oF discharge the order ~ see paragraph 10 below. This Order was made after the Order made between the same parties by the Court of First {Instance of the Dubai Financial Centre Courts ("DIFC") in claim no. CFI 020/2024 on 17 June 2014. To the extent that there Is an overlap in the subject matter of the two aforesaid Orders, the DIEC the primary role for enforcement as regards the Defendant, FREEZING ORDER 4a Until the disposal of the Claim of further order of the court. the Defendant must net remove {from England and Wales or in any way dispose of, deal with ar diminish the value of any of his assets which are in England and Wales up to the value of USS 5 million (“the Amount”) Paragraph 4 applies to all the Defendant's assets whether or not thay are in his own name ‘and whether they are solely or jointly owned. For the purpose of this order the Defendant's assets include any asset which he has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if It were his own. The Defendant Is to be regarded as having such power if third party holds or controls the asset in accordance with his director indirect instructions This prohibition includes the following assets in particular; (1) any money held in bank account number 860852512, sart code 60-17-13, held at Natwest, Putney Branch, United Kingdom, in the name “Millnet Limited”, or such other name as may be applicable; (2) any money held in bank account number 0503675, sort code 08-93,00, held at Cooperative Bank, 1 Balloon Street, Manchester, United Kingdom, in the name “GPW + Co Ltd”, or such other name as may be applicable; (3) any money held in the bank account held at Cooperaiive Bank with BAN: GB71 CPBK (0891 0304 2677 71 in the name “David Murray*, or such other name as may be appropriate; and (4) Trevorian Farm, Sancreed, Penzance, TA20 BRP, held under title number CL303990, W the total value free of charges or other securities (1unencumbered value’) of the Defendant's assets in England and Wales exceeds the Amount, the Defendant may removeany of those assets frosm tl United Kingdom or may dispose of or deal with them sa long os. the total urencumbered value of the Defendant's assets stl in England and Wales remains ‘above the Amount. EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ORDER 8. Exceptions (a) @ 8) O) 6) costs This order does not prohibit the Defendant from spending USS2,050 a week towards his ordinary living expenses If not in custody, and also a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation. But before spending any money the Defendant must tell ‘the Claimants legal renresentatives where the money is tocome from. ‘This order does not prohibit the Defendant from dealing with or disposing of any of hhis assets a the ordinary and praper course of business. The Defendant may agree with the Claimant's legal reprasentatives that the above “spending limits should be increased or that this order should be varied in any other ‘respect, but any agreement must be in writing. ‘The Defendant may apply for permission to fund a bail condition upon giving notice to the Claimant's legal representatives of the amount sought and the source of such funding. Such appl cation to be dealt with an the papers. ‘The order will cease to have effect if the Defendant: (a) provides security by paying the Amount into Court, to be held to the order of the Court; or {b) makes provision for security in that sum by another method agreed with the Claimant's legal representatives. 9, The costs of and occasioned by this Order shall be costs in the Claim. VARIATION OR DISCHARGE OF THIS ORDER 10. Anyone served with or notified of this order may apply to the Court at any time to vary 0° discharge this order (or so much of it as affects that person), but they must fist Inform the Claimant's legat representatives, If any evidence is to be relled upon in support of theapplication, the substance of it must be communicated in writing to the Claimant's legal ‘representatives in advance, INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDER 11. A Defendant/Respondent who is an individual who is ordered nat to do something must not do it himself or in any other way. He must not do it through others acting on his behalf or on bis Instructions or with hs encouragement, PARTIES OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT Effect ofthis order 17. itis a contempt of court for any person notified of this order knowingly to assist in or permit a breach of this order. Any person doing so may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized. Set-off by banks 43, This Injunction does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it may have in respect of any facility which it gave to the respondent before it was notified of this order. Withdrawals by the Defendant 14, No bank need enquire as to the application or proposed application of any money withdrawn by the Defendant if the withdrawal appears to be permitted by this order. Service of this Order 15, The Claimant may serve thls Order upon the Defendant by serving it upon his legal ‘representatives, Stephenson Harwood, Office 04, Level 12, Al Fattan Currency House, Oubai tnternational Financial Centre, P.O. Box 482017, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT ‘All communications to the Court about this order should be sent to: Admiralty and Commercial Court isting Office, 7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, ECAA INL quoting the case number. The telephone number is 020 7947 6826. ‘The offices are open berween 10 a.m, and 4.30 p.m. Monday to Friday.SCHEDULE A AFFIDAVITS The Applicant relied on the following alfidavits— The First Affidavit of Richard Philip Rocher, dated 7 August 2014, with exhibits RPRI and RPR2. RPRZ contained the following affidavits (2) Snes Patel, Fist Affidavit, 26 May 2014, Claimant (2) James Sinclair, Fest affidavit, 18 May 2024, Claimant (3) Emma Kettleton, First Affidavit, 23 May 2014, Claimant (4) Mark Taylor, First Affidavit, 23 May 2014, Claimant (5) Hicholas Bortman, First Affidavit, 2 June 2014, Claimant (6) Philip Rocher, First Affidavit, 2 June 2014, Claimant (7) Tiernan titegibbon, First Affidavit, 2June 2014, Claimant (8) Jinash Patel, Second Affidavit, 8 June 2024, Claimant (9) Piees Plumptre, First Affidavit, 13 June 2014, Claimant SCHEDULE 8 UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO THE COURT BY THE APPLICANT (2) If the Court later finds that this order has caused loss to the Defendant, and decides that the Defendant should be compensated for that los, the Claimant will eamply with any order the Court may make, 1d of this order will be given a copy of it by the Cinimont's legal representatives. (3) The Claimant will pay the reasonable costs of anyane other than the Defendant which have: been incurred as a result of this order including the costs of finding aut whether that person holds any of the Defendant's assets and ifthe Court later finds that this order has caused such person loss, and decides that such person should be compensated for that lass, the Claimant will comply with any order the Court may make:(4) IF this order ceases to have effect (for example, if the Defendant provides security) the Claimant will immediately take all reasonable steps to inform in writing anyone lo whom he has given notice of this order, or who he has reasonable grounds for supposing may act upon this order, that it has ceased to have effect. (5) The Claimant wil not without the permission of the Court use any information obtained as a result of this order for the purpose of any civil or criminal proceedings, ether in the DIFC. ‘or in any other jurisdiction, other than this claim. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ‘The Applicant's legal representatives are: ‘Gibson Dunn and Crutcher Temple House 2-4 Temple Avenue London EcaY 098, ‘Tel: 020 7073 4000 (inchiding cut of hours) Contact: Philip Rocher procher@gibsonduna.com Rel: ReR/OW2014 Folio 956 Before the Honourable Mr Justice Males 13 August 2014 BETWEEN: GFH CAPITAL LIMITED (a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates) and DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH Defendant -and- NATWEST BANK PLC. espondent ORDER UPON THE APPLICATION of the Claimant dated 8 August 2014 (“the Application") AND UPON HEARING counsel for the Claimant and Leading and junior counsel for the Defendant AND UPON THE RESPONDENT having indicated that it neither consented to nor opposed the Application AND UPON READING the papers filed herein,AND UPON CONSIDERING the Letter of Request dated 6 August 2014 issued by the Dubai Intemational Financial Centre Courts, I 1S ORDERED that: (1) The Respondent shall, by 4.30pm on 3 September 2014, file and serve on the Claimant and Defendant a witness statement exhibiting the documents specified below, in relation to account number 86085212, sort code 60-17-11: () The account opening form; Gi) All signature mandates; (ii) Copies of the documents provided to the bank by the nominal and/or beneficial owner of each of the above account as proof of their identity; (iv) The bank statements from the date on which the account was opened, or 1 February 2013, whichever is tater, until the date of the witness statement. (2) The Claimant shall pay the reasonable cosls of the Respondent of complying with this Order. (3) Save as provided in paragraph (2) above, there be no order as to costs. Dated this 13" day of August 2014 BY THE COURT2014 Folio 956 {QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION) COMMERCIAL COURT Before the Honourable Mr Justice Males 13” August 2014 BETWEEN: GFH CAPITAL LIMITED (a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates) ‘ClsimanvApplicant -and- DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH Defendant CO-OPERATIVE BANK PLC Respondent ORDER UPON THE APPLICATION of the Claimant dated 8 August 2014 (‘the Application”) AND UPON HEARING counscl for the Claimant and Leading and junior counsel for the Defendant, AND UPON THE RESPONDENT indicating that it consents to the Application. AND UPON READING the papers filed herein,AND UPON CONSIDERING the Letter of Request dated 6 August 2014 issued by the Dubai Intemational Financial Centre Courts, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The Respondent shall, by 4.30pin on 3 September 2014, file and serve on the Claimant and Defendant a witness statement exhibiting the documents specified ‘below, in relation to each of Account Number 04267771, IBAN Number GB71 CPBKO791030426777! and Account Number 05003675, IBAN Number GB81 CPBK08930005003675: () The account opening form; All signature mandates; Gili) Copies of the documents provided to the bank by the nominal and/or beneficial owner of each of the above accounts as proof of their identity; (iv) The bank statements from the date on which the account was opened, or 1 February 2013, whichever is later, until the date of the witness statement. (2) The Claimant shall pay the reasonable costs of the Respondent of complying with this, Order. (3) Save as provided in paragraph (2) above, there be no order as to costs. Dated this 13" day of August 2014 BY THE COURTAnnex 3fa Sa eT Hello, ‘We've investigeted and suspended the account you reported as itwas ‘ound to be-partcipaling in abusive behavior: This help page has instructions and additional information on making your profile protected tips suppor twiter comlentfies!1 4016 ‘Here is some additional information about dealing with bullying ‘Dilps support twitter com/articies/1 5794 fthese problems persist for you on Twitter, please let us know. Thanks, Twitter ‘System Reference: ref OODAQ000000K0A8 500G000000ZGMm ref BlAnnex 4The account you are trying to view has been suspended.