J&J Snacks Food Corporation & Anor v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 3439 (Ch) (12 December 2024)

J&J Snacks Food Corporation & Anor v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 3439 (Ch) (12 December 2024)

This is an unusual case where, despite the general rule that asset disclosure is required before the return date under a freezing order, the defendants are entitled to an extension of time for compliance until after the adjourned return date due to concerns about the ex parte procedure, the passage of time since the alleged dishonesty, lack of direct evidence of risk of dissipation, and insufficient justification for the maximum sum of the freezing order against these defendants.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3439 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: J&J Snack Foods Corporation; Applicant/claimant: ICEE Corporation; Respondent/defendant: Ralph Peters & Sons Limited; Respondent/defendant: Mark Peters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Intellectual Property Litigation / Hearing on Extension of Time for Asset Disclosure Under Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to extend time for asset disclosure granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Unjust Enrichment, Ex Parte Applications
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Unjust Enrichment Ex Parte Applications

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J&J Snack Foods Corporation

Applicant/claimant

ICEE Corporation

Applicant/claimant

Ralph Peters & Sons Limited

Respondent/defendant

Mark Peters

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Intellectual Property Litigation / Hearing on Extension of Time for Asset Disclosure Under Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time for compliance with asset disclosure under freezing order should be extended until after adjourned return date
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order and associated disclosure were properly granted ex parte
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient risk of dissipation of assets to justify immediate disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

This is an unusual case where, despite the general rule that asset disclosure is required before the return date under a freezing order, the defendants are entitled to an extension of time for compliance until after the adjourned return date due to concerns about the ex parte procedure, the passage of time since the alleged dishonesty, lack of direct evidence of risk of dissipation, and insufficient justification for the maximum sum of the freezing order against these defendants.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time for asset disclosure granted.

Orders

  • Defendants required to swear affidavit of disclosure in accordance with existing order but not required to serve it pending adjourned return date.
  • No final decision on whether the freezing order should stand or be continued; matter to be determined at adjourned return date.