Ivy Technology v Martin & Ors

Ivy Technology v Martin & Ors

Although Ivy Technology has a good arguable case against Mr Bell for conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, it has not provided solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell to justify the continuation of the freezing order. Material misrepresentations and non-disclosures by Ivy at the without notice hearing would also have justified discharge of the order.

Parties
Claimant: Ivy Technology; First Defendant: Mr Barry Martin; Second Defendant: Mr Paul Bell; Third Defendant: AXL Media Limited (trading as Premier Punt); Fourth Respondent: Mrs Lisa Martin
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, Inducing Breach of Contract, Risk of Dissipation, Non Disclosure/misrepresentation in Ex Parte Applications
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Freezing Orders Conspiracy Misrepresentation Non Competition Covenants Inducing Breach of Contract +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 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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

Mrs Lisa Martin

Fourth Respondent

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 solid evidence of risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell to justify continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure or misrepresentation by Ivy at the without notice hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Although Ivy Technology has a good arguable case against Mr Bell for conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, it has not provided solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Bell to justify the continuation of the freezing order. Material misrepresentations and non-disclosures by Ivy at the without notice hearing would also have justified discharge of the order.

Court Disposition

Freezing order discharged as against Mr Bell

Orders

  • Freezing order discharged as against Mr Bell
  • No notification injunction granted