Thane Investments Ltd & Ors v Tomlinson & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1272 (29 July 2003)

Thane Investments Ltd & Ors v Tomlinson & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1272 (29 July 2003)

The freezing order was improperly granted because there was no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Tomlinson or Reyall, and the procedural requirements for a without notice application were not met. The absence of an application notice, lack of affidavit evidence, and failure to explain why notice was not given rendered the order unsustainable.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1272
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Thane Investments Ltd; Claimant/respondent: Denbrae Limited; Claimant/respondent: Astim Limited; Claimant/respondent: Starborn Properties Limited; Defendant/appellant: Brian Tomlinson; Defendant/appellant: Reyall Business Consultants Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Malcolm Wagner; Defendant/appellant: The Grant Arms Hotel Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Launchfile Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Peter W Bretherton; Defendant/appellant: Pamela Tomlinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division Decision Refusing to Discharge Freezing Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Practice Direction Compliance, Risk of Dissipation, Directors' Duties
Civil Procedure Equity Freezing Injunctions Without Notice Applications Practice Direction Compliance Risk of Dissipation Directors' Duties

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thane Investments Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Denbrae Limited

Claimant/respondent

Astim Limited

Claimant/respondent

Starborn Properties Limited

Claimant/respondent

Brian Tomlinson

Defendant/appellant

Reyall Business Consultants Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Malcolm Wagner

Defendant/appellant

The Grant Arms Hotel Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Launchfile Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Peter W Bretherton

Defendant/appellant

Pamela Tomlinson

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division Decision Refusing to Discharge Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against Mr Tomlinson and Reyall should be discharged for failure to comply with procedural requirements and lack of evidence of risk of dissipation

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order was improperly granted because there was no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Tomlinson or Reyall, and the procedural requirements for a without notice application were not met. The absence of an application notice, lack of affidavit evidence, and failure to explain why notice was not given rendered the order unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Freezing order against Mr Tomlinson and Reyall discharged
  • Costs to appellants to be assessed if not agreed