Property Services LDN Ltd v Laverstock Management Corporation Ltd [2022] EWHC 3697 (KB) (23 June 2022)

Property Services LDN Ltd v Laverstock Management Corporation Ltd [2022] EWHC 3697 (KB) (23 June 2022)

The High Court has no jurisdiction to revisit or set aside the order of Kerr J regarding the discharge of the injunction or refusal of adjournment; any challenge should be by appeal to the Court of Appeal, not by a fresh application. The claimant had the opportunity to raise service and adjournment issues before Kerr J. The present application is procedurally improper and totally without merit.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3697 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Property Services LDN Limited; Defendant/respondent: Laverstock Management Corporation Limited; Interested Parties: Victoria Liddell and Annika Kisby (Receivers), Daniel Richardson and Edward Avery-Gee (Joint Administrators)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
High Court Application (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Set Aside/discharge Injunction and Related Orders
Outcome
Application refused; certified totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Service of Court Documents, Injunctions, Administration of Insolvent Companies, Jurisdiction of High Court, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Insolvency Property Law Service of Court Documents Injunctions Administration of Insolvent Companies Jurisdiction of High Court Appeal Procedure

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Property Services LDN Limited

Claimant/applicant

Laverstock Management Corporation Limited

Defendant/respondent

Victoria Liddell and Annika Kisby (Receivers), Daniel Richardson and Edward Avery-Gee (Joint Administrators)

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

High Court Application (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Set Aside/discharge Injunction and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to revisit or set aside the order of Kerr J discharging an injunction and refusing adjournment
  2. 2 Whether there was proper service of the application notice and bundle under CPR rules
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's application to set aside/discharge is procedurally valid

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has no jurisdiction to revisit or set aside the order of Kerr J regarding the discharge of the injunction or refusal of adjournment; any challenge should be by appeal to the Court of Appeal, not by a fresh application. The claimant had the opportunity to raise service and adjournment issues before Kerr J. The present application is procedurally improper and totally without merit.

Court Disposition

Application refused; certified totally without merit.

Orders

  • Application to set aside/discharge the order of Kerr J is refused.
  • No jurisdiction to revisit or set aside the previous order.