Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Tominey

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Tominey

The freezing order against the BPN defendants is discharged because, despite a good arguable case, there is no real risk of dissipation or secretion of assets. The BPN defendants have substantial, openly held assets in the jurisdiction, have complied with disclosure, and there is no evidence of asset dissipation since the claimant raised its allegations. Costs are awarded to the BPN defendants on the standard basis, with an interim payment on account ordered. Indemnity costs are not justified. Permission to appeal is refused.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd.; First Defendant/respondent: Bernard Christopher Tominey; Third Defendant/respondent: Commark Ltd.; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Business Phones and Networks Ltd. (BPN); Eighth Defendant/respondent: Mr. Arundale; Ninth Defendant/respondent: Mr. Boylett; Tenth Defendant/respondent: Procurematrix Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Fraud/bribery) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Related Costs Orders
Outcome
Freezing order against BPN defendants discharged; costs awarded to BPN defendants on standard basis; interim payment on account ordered; permission to appeal refused; directions for further conduct of proceedings given.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Bribery and Corruption, Fiduciary Duties, Costs Orders, Disclosure, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunctions Bribery and Corruption Fiduciary Duties Costs Orders Disclosure +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd.

Claimant/applicant

Bernard Christopher Tominey

First Defendant/respondent

Commark Ltd.

Third Defendant/respondent

Business Phones and Networks Ltd. (BPN)

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Mr. Arundale

Eighth Defendant/respondent

Mr. Boylett

Ninth Defendant/respondent

Procurematrix Ltd.

Tenth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Fraud/bribery) / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Related Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against the BPN defendants should be continued
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation or secretion of assets by the BPN defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs and/or an interim payment on account

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order against the BPN defendants is discharged because, despite a good arguable case, there is no real risk of dissipation or secretion of assets. The BPN defendants have substantial, openly held assets in the jurisdiction, have complied with disclosure, and there is no evidence of asset dissipation since the claimant raised its allegations. Costs are awarded to the BPN defendants on the standard basis, with an interim payment on account ordered. Indemnity costs are not justified. Permission to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Freezing order against BPN defendants discharged; costs awarded to BPN defendants on standard basis; interim payment on account ordered; permission to appeal refused; directions for further conduct of proceedings given.

Orders

  • Freezing order against BPN defendants (fourth, eighth, ninth) discharged.
  • Claimant to pay BPN defendants' costs of the application on the standard basis.