Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Taylor & Anor [2015] EWHC 2897 (Ch) (19 October 2015)

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Taylor & Anor [2015] EWHC 2897 (Ch) (19 October 2015)

The freezing order was discharged because the Claimant failed to establish a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation on the evidence, and there was material non-disclosure at the without notice hearing. The court found that the evidence presented to obtain the freezing order was partial and omitted material facts, and that the high threshold for such relief was not met.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2897 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited; First Defendant: Devenkumar Keshavlal Taylor; Second Defendant: Jugjit Ladhur (aka Jagjit Ladhur); Third Defendant: Informatrix Enterprise Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Freezing Order and for Strike Out/summary Judgment
Outcome
Freezing order discharged; strike out/summary judgment applications refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure Obligations, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Risk of Dissipation, Material Non Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Disclosure Obligations Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Risk of Dissipation Material Non Disclosure

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

Claimant

Devenkumar Keshavlal Taylor

First Defendant

Jugjit Ladhur (aka Jagjit Ladhur)

Second Defendant

Informatrix Enterprise Solutions Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Freezing Order and for Strike Out/summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against the Second Defendant should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the Claimant at the without notice hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant has a good arguable case

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order was discharged because the Claimant failed to establish a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation on the evidence, and there was material non-disclosure at the without notice hearing. The court found that the evidence presented to obtain the freezing order was partial and omitted material facts, and that the high threshold for such relief was not met.

Court Disposition

Freezing order discharged; strike out/summary judgment applications refused.

Orders

  • The freezing order against the Second Defendant is discharged.
  • Applications to strike out or for summary judgment on certain paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim are refused.