Hmicho v Barclays Bank Plc

Hmicho v Barclays Bank Plc

The Court cannot have the necessary high degree of assurance at this interlocutory stage that Barclays' suspicion regarding the funds is unreasonable or that Mrs Hmicho will succeed at trial. Barclays is entitled under sanctions regulations and its contractual terms to freeze the accounts if it reasonably suspects the funds are controlled by a designated person. The balance of convenience favours Barclays, and damages are not shown to be inadequate.

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 Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Financial Sanctions, Bank Account Freezing, EU and UK Sanctions Regulations, Bank Contractual Terms
Banking Law Sanctions Law Contract Law Interim Injunctions Financial Sanctions Bank Account Freezing EU and UK Sanctions Regulations Bank Contractual Terms

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 13 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 Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Barclays is justified in freezing Mrs Hmicho's accounts under UK and EU sanctions regulations
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Hmicho is entitled to interim mandatory injunctive relief to unfreeze her accounts
  3. 3 Whether Barclays has reasonable cause to suspect the funds are controlled by a designated person

Ratio Decidendi

The Court cannot have the necessary high degree of assurance at this interlocutory stage that Barclays' suspicion regarding the funds is unreasonable or that Mrs Hmicho will succeed at trial. Barclays is entitled under sanctions regulations and its contractual terms to freeze the accounts if it reasonably suspects the funds are controlled by a designated person. The balance of convenience favours Barclays, and damages are not shown to be inadequate.

Court Disposition

Application refused