Greenshores Properties Ltd v Andrews & Ors [2013] EWHC 3399 (QB) (07 November 2013)

Greenshores Properties Ltd v Andrews & Ors [2013] EWHC 3399 (QB) (07 November 2013)

The freezing orders must be discharged because the claimants failed to make proper disclosure of material documents when obtaining the order and, in any event, do not have a good arguable case against the first and third defendants for debt or proprietary relief. The general rule in cases of material non-disclosure applies, and there is insufficient evidence of risk of dissipation by the second defendant to justify continuation of the order.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3399
Parties
Claimant: Greenshores Properties Limited; First Defendant: Duncan Andrews; Second Defendant: Adam Hayes; Third Defendant: Cranbrook Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction / Interim Relief Application / Application to Discharge Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing orders discharged
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Proprietary Claims, Debt Claims, Agency, Breach of Trust
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Proprietary Claims Debt Claims Agency Breach of Trust

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

Parties

Greenshores Properties Limited

Claimant

Duncan Andrews

First Defendant

Adam Hayes

Second Defendant

Cranbrook Homes Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction / Interim Relief Application / Application to Discharge Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants made full and frank disclosure when obtaining the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a good arguable case against the first and third defendants for debt or proprietary relief
  3. 3 Whether the freezing order should be discharged for material non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing orders must be discharged because the claimants failed to make proper disclosure of material documents when obtaining the order and, in any event, do not have a good arguable case against the first and third defendants for debt or proprietary relief. The general rule in cases of material non-disclosure applies, and there is insufficient evidence of risk of dissipation by the second defendant to justify continuation of the order.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders discharged

Orders

  • The freezing orders against all defendants are discharged.
  • No new freezing order to be made against any defendant.