Purbrick v Cruz & Anor [2020] EWHC 1465 (QB) (11 June 2020)

Purbrick v Cruz & Anor [2020] EWHC 1465 (QB) (11 June 2020)

There was not sufficient material non-disclosure to justify setting aside the freezing injunction. The only significant omission was the failure to disclose the claimant's insurance claim against the company's policy, but this would not have changed the outcome. There remains a good arguable case that Mark Cruz contracted personally, based on the contract wording, conduct, and ambiguity, and a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the injunction. The company should be joined as a second defendant.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1465
Parties
Claimant: Robert Purbrick; First Defendant: Mark Cruz; Second Defendant: MM Cruz Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Joinder of Second Defendant / Post Ex Parte Interim Relief, Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Application to set aside the freezing injunction refused; application to join MM Cruz Developments Ltd as second defendant granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Identity of Contracting Parties, Risk of Dissipation, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Contract Law Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Identity of Contracting Parties Risk of Dissipation Joinder of Parties

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

Parties

Robert Purbrick

Claimant

Mark Cruz

First Defendant

MM Cruz Developments Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Joinder of Second Defendant / Post Ex Parte Interim Relief, Return Date Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case that Mark Cruz is personally liable under the contract
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There was not sufficient material non-disclosure to justify setting aside the freezing injunction. The only significant omission was the failure to disclose the claimant's insurance claim against the company's policy, but this would not have changed the outcome. There remains a good arguable case that Mark Cruz contracted personally, based on the contract wording, conduct, and ambiguity, and a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the injunction. The company should be joined as a second defendant.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the freezing injunction refused; application to join MM Cruz Developments Ltd as second defendant granted.

Orders

  • Continuation of freezing injunction against Mark Cruz up to £200,000.
  • MM Cruz Developments Ltd joined as second defendant.