Ivy Technology v Martin & Ors [2019] EWHC 2510 (Comm) (26 September 2019)

Ivy Technology v Martin & Ors [2019] EWHC 2510 (Comm) (26 September 2019)

Ivy Technology failed to demonstrate solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell. Despite a good arguable case on conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, the freezing order cannot be continued against Mr Bell absent sufficient risk of dissipation. Material non-disclosure and misrepresentation by Ivy were noted but not determinative given the primary finding on dissipation.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2510 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: IVY TECHNOLOGY; First Defendant: MR BARRY MARTIN; Second Defendant: MR PAUL BELL; Third Defendant: AXL MEDIA LIMITED (trading as PREMIER PUNT)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Freezing Order Application / Return Date Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing order discharged as against Mr Bell
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Conspiracy, Misrepresentation, Non Competition Covenants, Procuring Breach of Contract, Risk of Dissipation, Non Disclosure, Misrepresentation Act 1967
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Freezing Orders Conspiracy Misrepresentation Non Competition Covenants Procuring Breach of Contract +3 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 8 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IVY TECHNOLOGY

Claimant

MR BARRY MARTIN

First Defendant

MR PAUL BELL

Second Defendant

AXL MEDIA LIMITED (trading as PREMIER PUNT)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Freezing Order Application / Return Date Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ivy Technology has a good arguable case against Mr Bell for conspiracy and procuring breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell justifying continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure or misrepresentation by Ivy at the without notice hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Ivy Technology failed to demonstrate solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell. Despite a good arguable case on conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, the freezing order cannot be continued against Mr Bell absent sufficient risk of dissipation. Material non-disclosure and misrepresentation by Ivy were noted but not determinative given the primary finding on dissipation.

Court Disposition

Freezing order discharged as against Mr Bell

Orders

  • Freezing order against Mr Bell discharged
  • Continuation of freezing order against other Defendants as consented or agreed