Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Ltd [2023] EWHC 2147 (Ch) (22 August 2023)

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry & Ors v Uniserve Ltd [2023] EWHC 2147 (Ch) (22 August 2023)

Uniserve's implied terms claim against Maxitrac and Dr Stead constitutes a good arguable case and supports the freezing order; failure to disclose weaknesses in the express terms claim was a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure but was not material enough to warrant discharge; delay in application does not justify discharge given ongoing risk of dissipation.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2147 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry; Claimant: Caramel Sales Ltd; Claimant: David Popeck; Defendant / Respondent: Uniserve Ltd; Third Party / First Applicant: Maxitrac Ltd; Fourth Party / Second Applicant: Dr Andrew Stead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order / Post Order, Rehearing on Discharge Application
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing order refused; order continued on current terms.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Breach of Contract, Implied Terms, Full and Frank Disclosure, Delay in Application
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Breach of Contract Implied Terms Full and Frank Disclosure Delay in Application

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry

Claimant

Caramel Sales Ltd

Claimant

David Popeck

Claimant

Uniserve Ltd

Defendant / Respondent

Maxitrac Ltd

Third Party / First Applicant

Dr Andrew Stead

Fourth Party / Second Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order / Post Order, Rehearing on Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Uniserve has a good arguable case against Maxitrac and Dr Stead to justify the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether delay in applying to discharge the order affects relief

Ratio Decidendi

Uniserve's implied terms claim against Maxitrac and Dr Stead constitutes a good arguable case and supports the freezing order; failure to disclose weaknesses in the express terms claim was a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure but was not material enough to warrant discharge; delay in application does not justify discharge given ongoing risk of dissipation.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing order refused; order continued on current terms.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order to remain in force up to £39 million.
  • Costs issue reserved for further consideration.