Dinglis Properties Ltd & Anor v Dinglis Management Litd & Ors [2016] EWHC 818 (Ch) (14 April 2016)

Dinglis Properties Ltd & Anor v Dinglis Management Litd & Ors [2016] EWHC 818 (Ch) (14 April 2016)

There is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendants below the £4 million threshold; any inference of propensity to dissipate is rebutted by Defendants' conduct and lack of actual dissipation; additionally, Claimants committed a serious breach of duty by failing to disclose material facts regarding risk of dissipation.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 818 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dinglis Properties Limited; Claimant/respondent: Gatemark Limited; Defendant/applicant: Dinglis Management Limited; Defendant/applicant: Paul Dinglis; Defendant/applicant: Cheryl Conrad-Joyce; Defendant/applicant: Eagle Shareholdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Freezing Order / Post Interim Order, Contested Discharge Hearing
Outcome
Freezing order discharged
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Directors' Duties, Risk of Asset Dissipation
Civil Procedure Company Law Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Directors' Duties Risk of Asset Dissipation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinglis Properties Limited

Claimant/respondent

Gatemark Limited

Claimant/respondent

Dinglis Management Limited

Defendant/applicant

Paul Dinglis

Defendant/applicant

Cheryl Conrad-Joyce

Defendant/applicant

Eagle Shareholdings Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Freezing Order / Post Interim Order, Contested Discharge Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants breached their duty of full and fair disclosure in obtaining the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendants below the £4 million threshold; any inference of propensity to dissipate is rebutted by Defendants' conduct and lack of actual dissipation; additionally, Claimants committed a serious breach of duty by failing to disclose material facts regarding risk of dissipation.

Court Disposition

Freezing order discharged

Orders

  • Freezing order discharged; costs and consequential relief to be determined after hearing Counsel