GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 65 (05 February 2024)

GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 65 (05 February 2024)

The majority held that, properly construed, 'the Claim' in the freezing order referred to the DIFC proceedings, not the English Part 8 claim. The freezing injunction expired upon judgment in the DIFC, and there was no outstanding application for permission to appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 65
Parties
Claimant/appellant: GFH Capital Limited; First Defendant/respondent: David Lawrence Haigh; Second Defendant/respondent: The Cove Estates Limited; Third Defendant/respondent: Hotel Cove Limited; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Cove Lamorna Limited; Fifth Defendant/respondent: Mont Fleury Limited; Sixth Defendant/respondent: Cloatley Hospitality Limited; Seventh Defendant/respondent: Sport Capital Limited; Eighth Defendant/respondent: Alison Louise Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Interpretation of Court Orders, Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Interpretation of Court Orders Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GFH Capital Limited

Claimant/appellant

David Lawrence Haigh

First Defendant/respondent

The Cove Estates Limited

Second Defendant/respondent

Hotel Cove Limited

Third Defendant/respondent

Cove Lamorna Limited

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Mont Fleury Limited

Fifth Defendant/respondent

Cloatley Hospitality Limited

Sixth Defendant/respondent

Sport Capital Limited

Seventh Defendant/respondent

Alison Louise Thomas

Eighth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction expired upon disposal of the DIFC proceedings or continues until formal termination of the English Part 8 claim
  2. 2 Whether the existence of an undetermined application for permission to appeal in the DIFC prevents disposal of the DIFC proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that, properly construed, 'the Claim' in the freezing order referred to the DIFC proceedings, not the English Part 8 claim. The freezing injunction expired upon judgment in the DIFC, and there was no outstanding application for permission to appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.