Pritpal Singh Gill v (1) Anami Holdings Limited (2) Clark Hill Limited [2019] EWHC 440 (Ch) (25 January 2019)

Pritpal Singh Gill v (1) Anami Holdings Limited (2) Clark Hill Limited [2019] EWHC 440 (Ch) (25 January 2019)

The sale of the property by Enilo and subsequent transactions were in breach of the stay on enforcement ordered by the court. To prevent frustration of the stay and protect the claimant's interests, it is appropriate to add the proposed additional defendants as parties and grant an interim injunction restraining further sale or disposal of the property until a return date.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 440 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Pritpal Singh Gill; Defendant/respondent: Anami Holdings Limited; Defendant/respondent: Clark Hill Limited; Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent: Enilo International Limited; Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent: Vitality Estates Limited; Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent: Proprio Investments Limited; Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent: Pananveer Bachra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Ongoing Chancery Division Proceedings / Urgent Without Notice Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction granted; proposed additional defendants added as parties.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Enforcement of Consent Orders, Breach of Stay, Nominee Ownership, Mortgage Enforcement
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Interim Injunctions Enforcement of Consent Orders Breach of Stay Nominee Ownership Mortgage Enforcement

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

Parties

Pritpal Singh Gill

Claimant

Anami Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

Clark Hill Limited

Defendant/respondent

Enilo International Limited

Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent

Vitality Estates Limited

Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent

Proprio Investments Limited

Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent

Pananveer Bachra

Proposed Additional Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Ongoing Chancery Division Proceedings / Urgent Without Notice Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants and proposed additional defendants breached a stay on enforcement of a consent order by taking steps to sell the claimant's family home
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to prevent further sale or disposal of the property pending trial

Ratio Decidendi

The sale of the property by Enilo and subsequent transactions were in breach of the stay on enforcement ordered by the court. To prevent frustration of the stay and protect the claimant's interests, it is appropriate to add the proposed additional defendants as parties and grant an interim injunction restraining further sale or disposal of the property until a return date.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted; proposed additional defendants added as parties.

Orders

  • Proposed additional defendants are joined as parties to the proceedings.
  • Interim injunction granted restraining any sale or disposal of the property until the return date.