VB Football Assets v Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd & Ors

VB Football Assets v Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd & Ors

The risk of dissipation persists due to the Respondents' conduct, lack of voluntary payment, and opaque financial affairs; enforcement mechanisms do not adequately protect the Petitioner, so the freezing order must remain.

Parties
Petitioner: VB Football Assets; First Respondent: Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Limited (formerly Segesta Limited); Second Respondent: Owen Oyston; Third Respondent: Karl Oyston; Fourth Respondent: Blackpool Football Club Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Section 994 Petition (companies Act) / Post Judgment Enforcement Application
Outcome
Application to discharge or vary the freezing order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Judgment, Unfair Prejudice, Asset Dissipation
Company Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Enforcement of Judgment Unfair Prejudice Asset Dissipation

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

Parties

VB Football Assets

Petitioner

Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Limited (formerly Segesta Limited)

First Respondent

Owen Oyston

Second Respondent

Karl Oyston

Third Respondent

Blackpool Football Club Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 994 Petition (companies Act) / Post Judgment Enforcement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the post-judgment freezing order should be discharged or varied
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of asset dissipation by the Respondents
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner is adequately protected by other enforcement mechanisms

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of dissipation persists due to the Respondents' conduct, lack of voluntary payment, and opaque financial affairs; enforcement mechanisms do not adequately protect the Petitioner, so the freezing order must remain.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge or vary the freezing order dismissed.

Orders

  • The freezing order remains in force without variation.
  • No cross-undertaking in damages required from the Petitioner.