Bord Na Mona Horticulture Ltd v Washington & Ors [2017] EWHC 2406 (Ch) (07 September 2017)

Bord Na Mona Horticulture Ltd v Washington & Ors [2017] EWHC 2406 (Ch) (07 September 2017)

The claimant failed to adduce solid evidence capable of giving rise to the inference of a real risk, judged objectively, that a future judgment would not be met because of unjustifiable dissipation by Mr Washington of his assets. The allegations of fraud and dishonesty, in the circumstances of this case, did not establish such a risk. Therefore, the undertakings given by Mr Washington in lieu of a freezing injunction should be discharged.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2406 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Bord Na Móna Horticulture Ltd.; First Defendant/applicant: Stephen Washington; Second Defendant: Gillian Mary Washington; Third Defendant: Susan Joan Harden; Fourth Defendant: Carol Moore; Fifth Defendant: SWW Land Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application in Ongoing Chancery Division Proceedings / Hearing of Application by First Defendant to Be Released From Undertakings Given in Lieu of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Application granted; undertakings discharged; costs awarded to first defendant.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Asset Dissipation, Full and Frank Disclosure, Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Warranty Asset Dissipation Full and Frank Disclosure Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bord Na Móna Horticulture Ltd.

Claimant

Stephen Washington

First Defendant/applicant

Gillian Mary Washington

Second Defendant

Susan Joan Harden

Third Defendant

Carol Moore

Fourth Defendant

SWW Land Ltd.

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application in Ongoing Chancery Division Proceedings / Hearing of Application by First Defendant to Be Released From Undertakings Given in Lieu of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by the first defendant justifying a freezing injunction or undertakings in lieu
  2. 2 Whether the claimant failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure when seeking the original freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's conduct in policing the undertakings was oppressive or obstructive

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to adduce solid evidence capable of giving rise to the inference of a real risk, judged objectively, that a future judgment would not be met because of unjustifiable dissipation by Mr Washington of his assets. The allegations of fraud and dishonesty, in the circumstances of this case, did not establish such a risk. Therefore, the undertakings given by Mr Washington in lieu of a freezing injunction should be discharged.

Court Disposition

Application granted; undertakings discharged; costs awarded to first defendant.

Orders

  • First defendant discharged from undertakings given in lieu of freezing injunction.
  • Claimant to pay first defendant's costs of the original freezing injunction and variations.