Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Tominey [2012] EWHC 3580 (Ch) (30 November 2012)

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Tominey [2012] EWHC 3580 (Ch) (30 November 2012)

The freezing order against the BPN defendants is discharged because, despite a good arguable case, there is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation or secretion of assets. The BPN defendants are entitled to their costs on the standard basis, with a payment on account ordered. The claimant's application for permission to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3580 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd.; First Defendant/respondent: Bernard Christopher Tominey; Third Defendant/respondent: Commark Ltd.; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Business Phones and Networks Ltd. (BPN); Eighth Defendant/respondent: Mr. Arundale; Ninth Defendant/respondent: Mr. Boylett; Tenth Defendant/respondent: Procurematrix Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Related Costs Orders
Outcome
Application for continuation of freezing order against BPN defendants refused; freezing order discharged; costs awarded to BPN defendants on standard basis; payment on account of £85,000 plus VAT ordered; directions for service of defences and further case management given.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Bribery and Corruption, Fiduciary Duties, Costs Orders, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud and Asset Recovery Freezing Injunctions Bribery and Corruption Fiduciary Duties Costs Orders Interim Relief

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

Parties

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd.

Claimant/applicant

Bernard Christopher Tominey

First Defendant/respondent

Commark Ltd.

Third Defendant/respondent

Business Phones and Networks Ltd. (BPN)

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Mr. Arundale

Eighth Defendant/respondent

Mr. Boylett

Ninth Defendant/respondent

Procurematrix Ltd.

Tenth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Related Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against the BPN defendants should be continued
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation or secretion of assets by the BPN defendants
  3. 3 Appropriate order as to costs and interim payment on account

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order against the BPN defendants is discharged because, despite a good arguable case, there is insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation or secretion of assets. The BPN defendants are entitled to their costs on the standard basis, with a payment on account ordered. The claimant's application for permission to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for continuation of freezing order against BPN defendants refused; freezing order discharged; costs awarded to BPN defendants on standard basis; payment on account of £85,000 plus VAT ordered; directions for service of defences and further case management given.

Orders

  • Freezing order against BPN defendants discharged
  • Claimant to pay BPN defendants' costs on the standard basis