Soutzos v Asombang & Ors

Soutzos v Asombang & Ors

Miss Dawkins and Miss Fox failed to prove that Clydesdale Bank would have made the loans but for the injunction, and the information provided to the bank was materially deficient and included deliberate misrepresentations. Any loan would have been induced by fraud, engaging the ex turpi causa principle and barring recovery. The alleged losses were not proved to have been caused by the injunction, nor were they established on the evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Theodore Ion Soutzos; First Defendant: Joseph Asombang; Second Defendant: Fiona Catherine Dawkins; Third Defendant: Christine Ellen Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Inquiry as to Damages Following Dismissal of Claim and Enforcement of Cross Undertaking / Judgment on Inquiry as to Damages
Outcome
Claims for compensation under the cross-undertaking dismissed; no payment ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Ex Turpi Causa, Causation of Loss, Material Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Equity Freezing Injunctions Cross Undertaking in Damages Ex Turpi Causa Causation of Loss Material Misrepresentation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theodore Ion Soutzos

Claimant

Joseph Asombang

First Defendant

Fiona Catherine Dawkins

Second Defendant

Christine Ellen Fox

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Inquiry as to Damages Following Dismissal of Claim and Enforcement of Cross Undertaking / Judgment on Inquiry as to Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction caused loss to the Second and Third Defendants
  2. 2 Whether compensation should be awarded under the cross-undertaking in damages
  3. 3 Whether the ex turpi causa principle bars recovery

Ratio Decidendi

Miss Dawkins and Miss Fox failed to prove that Clydesdale Bank would have made the loans but for the injunction, and the information provided to the bank was materially deficient and included deliberate misrepresentations. Any loan would have been induced by fraud, engaging the ex turpi causa principle and barring recovery. The alleged losses were not proved to have been caused by the injunction, nor were they established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Claims for compensation under the cross-undertaking dismissed; no payment ordered.