Apparel Fzco v Iqbal [2024] EWHC 1931 (Comm) (26 July 2024)

Apparel Fzco v Iqbal [2024] EWHC 1931 (Comm) (26 July 2024)

The claimant failed to provide full and frank disclosure in material respects at the original without notice hearing, including not fairly presenting evidence that could support the defendant's case and making unqualified and misleading factual assertions. Even on the evidence now available, the claimant does not meet the threshold for a good arguable case, and there is no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets. The freezing injunction must be set aside and not continued or re-instated.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1931 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: APPAREL FZCO; Defendant/respondent: SHEERAZ IQBAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction (without Notice) – Application to Continue or Set Aside / Post Injunction, Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge
Outcome
Claimant's application to continue or re-instate the freezing order dismissed; defendant's application to discharge the order succeeds.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Interim Relief, Fraud, Risk of Dissipation, Standard for Good Arguable Case
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Interim Relief Fraud Risk of Dissipation Standard for Good Arguable Case

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

Parties

APPAREL FZCO

Claimant/applicant

SHEERAZ IQBAL

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction (without Notice) – Application to Continue or Set Aside / Post Injunction, Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to provide full and frank disclosure in the original without notice application for a freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether the freezing injunction should be continued or re-instated based on the evidence now available
  3. 3 Whether there is a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide full and frank disclosure in material respects at the original without notice hearing, including not fairly presenting evidence that could support the defendant's case and making unqualified and misleading factual assertions. Even on the evidence now available, the claimant does not meet the threshold for a good arguable case, and there is no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets. The freezing injunction must be set aside and not continued or re-instated.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to continue or re-instate the freezing order dismissed; defendant's application to discharge the order succeeds.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction set aside and discharged.
  • No continuation or re-instatement of the order.