VB Football Assets v Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1232 (Ch) (23 May 2018)

VB Football Assets v Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1232 (Ch) (23 May 2018)

There remains a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Respondents, the judgment debt remains substantially unsatisfied, and the Petitioner is not adequately protected by other enforcement measures; therefore, the freezing order should not be discharged or varied.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1232 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: VB Football Assets; First Respondent: Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Limited (formerly Segesta Limited); Second Respondent: Owen Oyston; Third Respondent: Karl Oyston; Fourth Respondent: Blackpool Football Club Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Section 994 Companies Act 2006 Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Post Judgment Enforcement; Application to Discharge or Vary Post Judgment Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to discharge or vary the freezing order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Judgments, Corporate Veil, Asset Dissipation
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Judgments Corporate Veil Asset Dissipation

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VB Football Assets

Petitioner

Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Limited (formerly Segesta Limited)

First Respondent

Owen Oyston

Second Respondent

Karl Oyston

Third Respondent

Blackpool Football Club Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 994 Companies Act 2006 Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Post Judgment Enforcement; Application to Discharge or Vary Post Judgment Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the post-judgment freezing order should be discharged or varied
  2. 2 Whether there remains a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner is adequately protected by other enforcement measures

Ratio Decidendi

There remains a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Respondents, the judgment debt remains substantially unsatisfied, and the Petitioner is not adequately protected by other enforcement measures; therefore, the freezing order should not be discharged or varied.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge or vary the freezing order dismissed.

Orders

  • The freezing order remains in force without variation.
  • No cross-undertaking in damages required from the Petitioner.