Ivy Technology v Martin & Ors [2019] EWHC 2510 (Comm) (26 September 2019)

Ivy Technology v Martin & Ors [2019] EWHC 2510 (Comm) (26 September 2019)

The freezing order against Mr Bell was discharged because, although Ivy Technology had a good arguable case against him for conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, there was insufficient solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell to justify continuation of the freezing order.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2510
Parties
Claimant: IVY TECHNOLOGY; First Defendant: MR BARRY MARTIN; Second Defendant: MR PAUL BELL; Third Defendant: AXL MEDIA LIMITED (trading as PREMIER PUNT)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Freezing Order Application / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing order discharged as against Mr Bell.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Non Competition Covenants, Procuring Breach of Contract, Risk of Dissipation, Disclosure Obligations
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Freezing Injunctions Misrepresentation Conspiracy Breach of Contract Non Competition Covenants +3 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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IVY TECHNOLOGY

Claimant

MR BARRY MARTIN

First Defendant

MR PAUL BELL

Second Defendant

AXL MEDIA LIMITED (trading as PREMIER PUNT)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Freezing Order Application / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a good arguable case against Mr Bell for conspiracy and procuring breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell justifying continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure or misrepresentation by the claimant at the without notice hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order against Mr Bell was discharged because, although Ivy Technology had a good arguable case against him for conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, there was insufficient solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell to justify continuation of the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Freezing order discharged as against Mr Bell.

Orders

  • The freezing order is discharged as against the Second Defendant, Mr Paul Bell.
  • The freezing order continues as varied or consented against the other Defendants and Mrs Lisa Martin.