Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Ltd v McBride [2014] EWHC 1231 (QB) (16 April 2014)

Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Ltd v McBride [2014] EWHC 1231 (QB) (16 April 2014)

The court held that the serious and systematic allegations of fraud against Mr McBride, together with his conduct regarding trust property and inaccuracies in asset declarations, justified an inference of a real risk of dissipation of assets. No material change in circumstances was shown to justify discharge of the injunction, and the omissions in disclosure by SMPT were not sufficiently serious to warrant discharge. The application to discharge the freezing order was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1231 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Limited; Defendant/applicant: James McBride
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Freezing Injunction in Civil Proceedings / Post Interim Injunction, Pre Trial
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing order dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Professional Negligence, Disclosure Obligations, Risk of Dissipation of Assets, Consent Orders, Delay in Seeking Relief
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Professional Negligence Freezing Injunctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Disclosure Obligations Risk of Dissipation of Assets Consent Orders +1 more

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Limited

Claimant/respondent

James McBride

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Freezing Injunction in Civil Proceedings / Post Interim Injunction, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk that the defendant will dissipate assets justifying continuation of a freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant at the without notice hearing
  3. 3 Whether delay by the claimant in seeking the injunction or by the defendant in seeking its discharge affects the appropriateness of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the serious and systematic allegations of fraud against Mr McBride, together with his conduct regarding trust property and inaccuracies in asset declarations, justified an inference of a real risk of dissipation of assets. No material change in circumstances was shown to justify discharge of the injunction, and the omissions in disclosure by SMPT were not sufficiently serious to warrant discharge. The application to discharge the freezing order was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing order dismissed

Orders

  • Freezing order made by Mr Justice Leggatt on 8 May 2013 to remain in force
  • Application to discharge the freezing order is dismissed