MHP Food UK Ltd v Sanson Foods Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 619 (Comm) (23 March 2026)

MHP Food UK Ltd v Sanson Foods Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 619 (Comm) (23 March 2026)

The application to discharge the freezing and proprietary injunctions was refused because the Deputy Judge was entitled to find a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation based on objective evidence. There was no breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure or fair presentation by MHP. The alleged 'side deal' and other defences raised factual disputes for trial, not grounds for discharge. The post-order conduct of MHP and its solicitors did not justify discharge. The orders were properly granted and would be re-made if discharged.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 619 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: MHP FOOD UK LIMITED; First Defendant: SANSON FOODS LIMITED; Second Defendant: ABU BUCKAR SIDIQ MOHAMED; Third Defendant: SULEMAN PATEL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Injunction/discharge Application / Hearing of Second Defendant's Application to Discharge Freezing and Proprietary Injunction Orders
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing and proprietary injunctions refused; orders continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Conversion, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Inducing Breach of Contract, Full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Conversion Unlawful Means Conspiracy Breach of Contract Inducing Breach of Contract +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MHP FOOD UK LIMITED

Claimant

SANSON FOODS LIMITED

First Defendant

ABU BUCKAR SIDIQ MOHAMED

Second Defendant

SULEMAN PATEL

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Injunction/discharge Application / Hearing of Second Defendant's Application to Discharge Freezing and Proprietary Injunction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing and proprietary injunctions should be discharged for lack of full and frank disclosure or fair presentation
  2. 2 Whether there was a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation justifying the orders
  3. 3 Whether post-order conduct by the Claimant justified discharge

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the freezing and proprietary injunctions was refused because the Deputy Judge was entitled to find a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation based on objective evidence. There was no breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure or fair presentation by MHP. The alleged 'side deal' and other defences raised factual disputes for trial, not grounds for discharge. The post-order conduct of MHP and its solicitors did not justify discharge. The orders were properly granted and would be re-made if discharged.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing and proprietary injunctions refused; orders continued.

Orders

  • Freezing and proprietary injunctions against all Defendants to continue.
  • No variation to the orders granted.