Greenshores Properties Ltd v Andrews & Ors [2013] EWHC 3399 (QB) (07 November 2013)

Greenshores Properties Ltd v Andrews & Ors [2013] EWHC 3399 (QB) (07 November 2013)

The freezing orders must be discharged because the claimants failed to make proper disclosure of material documents when obtaining the order, and in any event do not have a good arguable case for debt or proprietary relief against the first and third defendants. As to the second defendant, the general rule following material non-disclosure applies, and there is insufficient evidence that a freezing order would significantly reduce the risk of an unsatisfied judgment.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3399 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Greenshores Properties Limited; First Defendant: Duncan Andrews; Second Defendant: Adam Hayes; Third Defendant: Cranbrook Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Freezing Order / Post Interim Relief, Hearing of Discharge Application
Outcome
Freezing orders discharged
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Material Non Disclosure, Debt Claims, Proprietary Claims, Agency, Breach of Trust
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Material Non Disclosure Debt Claims Proprietary Claims Agency Breach of Trust

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

Parties

Greenshores Properties Limited

Claimant

Duncan Andrews

First Defendant

Adam Hayes

Second Defendant

Cranbrook Homes Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Freezing Order / Post Interim Relief, Hearing of Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants made proper disclosure when obtaining the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a good arguable case against the defendants for debt or proprietary relief
  3. 3 Whether the freezing order should be discharged for material non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing orders must be discharged because the claimants failed to make proper disclosure of material documents when obtaining the order, and in any event do not have a good arguable case for debt or proprietary relief against the first and third defendants. As to the second defendant, the general rule following material non-disclosure applies, and there is insufficient evidence that a freezing order would significantly reduce the risk of an unsatisfied judgment.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders discharged

Orders

  • The freezing orders against all defendants are discharged.
  • Submissions invited regarding the application to adduce forensic evidence by the second defendant.