Hmicho v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] EWHC 1757 (QB) (19 June 2015)

Hmicho v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] EWHC 1757 (QB) (19 June 2015)

The court refused to grant interim mandatory injunctive relief because it could not have the requisite high degree of assurance that Mrs Hmicho would succeed at trial. There was sufficient evidence to justify Barclays' reasonable suspicion that the funds in Mrs Hmicho's accounts were owned or controlled by a designated person, engaging the relevant sanctions regulations. The balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, as Barclays would risk committing a criminal offence if the accounts were unfrozen.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1757 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Elaine Hmicho; Defendant/respondent: Barclays Bank Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Mandatory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application for interim mandatory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Asset Freezing, Financial Sanctions, Banking Contracts, EU Regulations, Balance of Convenience
Banking Law Sanctions Law European Union Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Asset Freezing Financial Sanctions Banking Contracts +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elaine Hmicho

Claimant/applicant

Barclays Bank Plc

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Mandatory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Barclays Bank is justified in freezing Mrs Hmicho's personal bank accounts under EU and UK sanctions regulations due to her husband's designation.
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant an interim mandatory injunction requiring Barclays to unfreeze Mrs Hmicho's accounts.
  3. 3 Whether Barclays has reasonable cause to suspect the funds are owned, held, or controlled by a designated person (Mr Hmicho).

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant interim mandatory injunctive relief because it could not have the requisite high degree of assurance that Mrs Hmicho would succeed at trial. There was sufficient evidence to justify Barclays' reasonable suspicion that the funds in Mrs Hmicho's accounts were owned or controlled by a designated person, engaging the relevant sanctions regulations. The balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, as Barclays would risk committing a criminal offence if the accounts were unfrozen.

Court Disposition

Application for interim mandatory injunction refused

Orders

  • No order requiring Barclays to unfreeze Mrs Hmicho's accounts
  • Costs reserved