Vestey Foods UK Ltd v Cox & Ors

Vestey Foods UK Ltd v Cox & Ors

The freezing injunction was not continued because there was insufficient solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation by Mr Cox. The proprietary injunction was not continued because its terms were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous. Vestey breached its fair presentation obligation at the without notice hearing regarding the freezing injunction, but the breach was not intentional. The presentation regarding the proprietary injunction was fair as to clarity.

Parties
Claimant: Vestey Foods UK Limited; First Defendant: Adam Cox; Second Defendant: William Cooper; Third Defendant: Steller Packing Limited; Fourth Defendant: Steller Holdings Limited; Fifth Defendant: Andrew Wills; Sixth Defendant: Carl Humphrey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial/civil / Interlocutory Application—return Date Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Injunctions
Outcome
Injunctions not continued
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Fair Presentation/full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Trust, Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Fair Presentation/full and Frank Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Breach of Fiduciary Duty +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 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vestey Foods UK Limited

Claimant

Adam Cox

First Defendant

William Cooper

Second Defendant

Steller Packing Limited

Third Defendant

Steller Holdings Limited

Fourth Defendant

Andrew Wills

Fifth Defendant

Carl Humphrey

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/civil / Interlocutory Application—return Date Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction against Adam Cox should be continued on its merits
  2. 2 Whether the proprietary injunction should be continued against Adam Cox
  3. 3 Whether Vestey breached its fair presentation obligation (full and frank disclosure) at the without notice hearing and the consequences thereof

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction was not continued because there was insufficient solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation by Mr Cox. The proprietary injunction was not continued because its terms were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous. Vestey breached its fair presentation obligation at the without notice hearing regarding the freezing injunction, but the breach was not intentional. The presentation regarding the proprietary injunction was fair as to clarity.

Court Disposition

Injunctions not continued

Orders

  • The freezing injunction and proprietary injunction against Adam Cox are not continued. Further directions to be given after hearing from counsel.