Stephen Hunt v Ravneet Ubhi

Stephen Hunt v Ravneet Ubhi

The Judge erred in principle by accepting a limited cross-undertaking from the provisional liquidator without sufficient justification or evidence, contrary to the default requirement for an unlimited cross-undertaking. The applicant failed to discharge the burden to justify a departure from the default position, and the freezing order must be set aside.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: Stephen Hunt (as Provisional Liquidator of Black Capital); Respondent/appellant: Ravneet Ubhi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Continuing a Freezing Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; freezing order set aside as against Mr Ubhi
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Provisional Liquidator Powers, Disclosure Obligations
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Cross Undertaking in Damages Provisional Liquidator Powers Disclosure Obligations

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Hunt (as Provisional Liquidator of Black Capital)

Applicant/respondent

Ravneet Ubhi

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Continuing a Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judge erred in accepting a limited cross-undertaking from the provisional liquidator for a 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 or evidence, contrary to the default requirement for an unlimited cross-undertaking. The applicant failed to discharge the burden to justify a departure from the default position, and the freezing order must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; freezing order set aside as against Mr Ubhi

Orders

  • The freezing order against Mr Ubhi is set aside.
  • No opportunity to offer a new cross-undertaking at this stage.