Candy & Ors v Holyoake & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 92 (28 February 2017)

Candy & Ors v Holyoake & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 92 (28 February 2017)

The Court of Appeal held that the evidential threshold for granting a notification injunction is identical to that for a conventional freezing order: a real risk of unjustifiable dissipation must be shown by solid evidence. The judge erred by applying a lower threshold and by granting the injunction on insufficient evidence. The notification injunction and its continuation were wrongly granted and must be set aside.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 92
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; Appellant / Defendant: Christian Peter Candy; Appellant / Defendant: CPC Group Limited; Respondent / Claimant: Mark Alan Holyoake; Respondent / Claimant: Hotblack Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; notification injunction set aside.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Notification Injunctions, Risk of Dissipation, Balance of Convenience, Fortification of Undertakings
Civil Procedure Injunctions Commercial Law Freezing Orders Notification Injunctions Risk of Dissipation Balance of Convenience Fortification of Undertakings

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy

Appellant / Defendant

Christian Peter Candy

Appellant / Defendant

CPC Group Limited

Appellant / Defendant

Mark Alan Holyoake

Respondent / Claimant

Hotblack Holdings Limited

Respondent / Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct evidential threshold for granting a notification injunction?
  2. 2 Did the evidence demonstrate a real risk of dissipation justifying injunctive relief?
  3. 3 Should further evidence on risk of dissipation and balance of convenience have been admitted at the adjourned hearing?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the evidential threshold for granting a notification injunction is identical to that for a conventional freezing order: a real risk of unjustifiable dissipation must be shown by solid evidence. The judge erred by applying a lower threshold and by granting the injunction on insufficient evidence. The notification injunction and its continuation were wrongly granted and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; notification injunction set aside.

Orders

  • Notification injunction granted by Nugee J on 8 April and continued on 29 April set aside.
  • Any fortification orders dependent on the notification injunction are also set aside.