Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 (19 April 2023)

Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 (19 April 2023)

The judge erred in principle by accepting a limited cross-undertaking from the provisional liquidator without sufficient justification, contrary to the default requirement for an unlimited cross-undertaking in damages. The applicant failed to discharge the burden to justify a departure from the default position. The freezing order was therefore set aside.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 417
Parties
Freezing Order Applicant/respondent: Stephen Hunt (as Provisional Liquidator of Black Capital); Freezing Order Respondent/appellant: Ravneet Ubhi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision Continuing Freezing Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; freezing order against Mr Ubhi set aside.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Provisional Liquidator Powers, Full and Frank Disclosure, Partnership Insolvency
Insolvency Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Cross Undertaking in Damages Provisional Liquidator Powers Full and Frank Disclosure Partnership Insolvency

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Hunt (as Provisional Liquidator of Black Capital)

Freezing Order Applicant/respondent

Ravneet Ubhi

Freezing Order Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision Continuing Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was wrong to accept a limited cross-undertaking from the provisional liquidator for the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure justifying discharge of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether there was a good arguable case against Mr Ubhi justifying the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by accepting a limited cross-undertaking from the provisional liquidator without sufficient justification, contrary to the default requirement for an unlimited cross-undertaking in damages. The applicant failed to discharge the burden to justify a departure from the default position. The freezing order was therefore set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; freezing order against Mr Ubhi set aside.

Orders

  • Freezing order against Mr Ubhi set aside.
  • No further relief granted.