LTE Scientific Ltd. v Thomas & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1177 (27 July 2005)

LTE Scientific Ltd. v Thomas & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1177 (27 July 2005)

The facts did not meet the high threshold of urgency required for an ex parte freezing order. The applicant had already put the respondents on notice, and there was no evidence of imminent dissipation of assets that could not be addressed by an application on notice.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1177
Parties
Claimant/appellant: LTE Scientific Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Mr Thomas; Defendant/respondent: Mrs Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal) Against Refusal of Ex Parte Freezing Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Ex Parte Applications, Restrictive Covenants, Urgency in Interim Relief, Breach of Contract, Contempt of Court

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LTE Scientific Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Mr Thomas

Defendant/respondent

Mrs Thomas

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal) Against Refusal of Ex Parte Freezing Order

  1. 1 Whether the urgency justified granting a freezing order without notice
  2. 2 Whether the risk of dissipation of assets was immediate and exceptional

Ratio Decidendi

The facts did not meet the high threshold of urgency required for an ex parte freezing order. The applicant had already put the respondents on notice, and there was no evidence of imminent dissipation of assets that could not be addressed by an application on notice.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused