Purbrick v Cruz & Anor [2020] EWHC 1465 (QB) (11 June 2020)

Purbrick v Cruz & Anor [2020] EWHC 1465 (QB) (11 June 2020)

There was not sufficient material non-disclosure to justify setting aside the freezing injunction. The only significant omission was the claimant's attempt to claim under the company's insurance policy, but this would not have changed the outcome. There remains a good arguable case that Mr Cruz is personally liable under the contract, based on the contract wording, execution, and conduct of the parties. The risk of dissipation is established by Mr Cruz's ties to Mexico and attempts to dispose of UK assets.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1465 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Purbrick; First Defendant: Mark Cruz; Second Defendant: MM Cruz Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction / Post Ex Parte, Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Application to set aside the freezing injunction refused; freezing injunction continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Identity of Contracting Parties, Risk of Dissipation, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Contract Law Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Identity of Contracting Parties Risk of Dissipation Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Purbrick

Claimant

Mark Cruz

First Defendant

MM Cruz Developments Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction / Post Ex Parte, Return Date Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case that Mr Cruz is personally liable under the contract
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There was not sufficient material non-disclosure to justify setting aside the freezing injunction. The only significant omission was the claimant's attempt to claim under the company's insurance policy, but this would not have changed the outcome. There remains a good arguable case that Mr Cruz is personally liable under the contract, based on the contract wording, execution, and conduct of the parties. The risk of dissipation is established by Mr Cruz's ties to Mexico and attempts to dispose of UK assets.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the freezing injunction refused; freezing injunction continued.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction against Mark Cruz continued up to £200,000.
  • MM Cruz Developments Ltd added as Second Defendant.