Vestey Foods UK Ltd v Cox & Ors [2018] EWHC 3466 (Ch) (19 December 2018)

Vestey Foods UK Ltd v Cox & Ors [2018] EWHC 3466 (Ch) (19 December 2018)

The claimant failed to provide solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Adam Cox. The use of nominees to hold shares and alleged concealment of business involvement did not, on the facts, justify an inference that Mr Cox was likely to dissipate assets. The evidence did not establish a current risk of dissipation, and the claimant's arguments were insufficient to meet the threshold for continuation of the freezing injunction.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3466 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Vestey Foods UK Limited; First Defendant: Adam Cox; Second Defendant: William Cooper; Third Defendant: Steller Packing Limited; Fourth Defendant: Steller Holdings Limited; Fifth Defendant: Andrew Wills; Sixth Defendant: Carl Humphrey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (freezing and Proprietary Injunctions) in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Injunctions
Outcome
Freezing injunction against Adam Cox not continued; application to discharge granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Fiduciary Duties, Breach of Duty, Constructive Trust, Conspiracy, Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Fiduciary Duties +4 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vestey Foods UK Limited

Claimant

Adam Cox

First Defendant

William Cooper

Second Defendant

Steller Packing Limited

Third Defendant

Steller Holdings Limited

Fourth Defendant

Andrew Wills

Fifth Defendant

Carl Humphrey

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (freezing and Proprietary Injunctions) in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction against Adam Cox should be continued on its merits
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant at the without notice hearing and its consequences
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Adam Cox justifying continuation of the freezing injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Adam Cox. The use of nominees to hold shares and alleged concealment of business involvement did not, on the facts, justify an inference that Mr Cox was likely to dissipate assets. The evidence did not establish a current risk of dissipation, and the claimant's arguments were insufficient to meet the threshold for continuation of the freezing injunction.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction against Adam Cox not continued; application to discharge granted.

Orders

  • The freezing injunction against Adam Cox is discharged.
  • The proprietary injunction and related orders are not continued against Adam Cox.