FSL Services Ltd & Ors v MacDonald & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1008 (21 June, 2001)

FSL Services Ltd & Ors v MacDonald & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1008 (21 June, 2001)

The court has the power to bring an inquiry as to damages to a summary conclusion, but in this case, it is not appropriate to do so because the factual issues, particularly allegations of fraud, remain unresolved and should be determined at the inquiry. The authorities do not clearly preclude recovery of costs in such circumstances, and all arguments can be addressed at the inquiry.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1008
Parties
Claimant/appellant: FSL Services Limited; Claimant/appellant: Clive Needham and Robert Burton (as trustees of the FSL Consultants Benefits Trust); Claimant/appellant: Kravitz Industries SA; Claimant/appellant: Omega Financial Consultants Inc; Claimant/appellant: Whiteside Enterprises SA; Defendant/respondent: Robert Macdonald; Defendant/respondent: Susan Crew; Defendant/respondent: Paul Crew
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Undertaking as to Damages, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Case Management, Costs
Civil Procedure Equity Freezing Orders Undertaking as to Damages Fraudulent Misrepresentation Case Management Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FSL Services Limited

Claimant/appellant

Clive Needham and Robert Burton (as trustees of the FSL Consultants Benefits Trust)

Claimant/appellant

Kravitz Industries SA

Claimant/appellant

Omega Financial Consultants Inc

Claimant/appellant

Whiteside Enterprises SA

Claimant/appellant

Robert Macdonald

Defendant/respondent

Susan Crew

Defendant/respondent

Paul Crew

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an inquiry as to damages following the discharge of a freezing order can be summarily dismissed or struck out where the evidence does not establish loss caused by the order
  2. 2 Whether costs incurred in opposing a freezing order, including adverse costs orders, are recoverable as damages under the undertaking where the order was allegedly obtained by fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The court has the power to bring an inquiry as to damages to a summary conclusion, but in this case, it is not appropriate to do so because the factual issues, particularly allegations of fraud, remain unresolved and should be determined at the inquiry. The authorities do not clearly preclude recovery of costs in such circumstances, and all arguments can be addressed at the inquiry.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs agreed in the sum of £8,500
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused