Sean Lindsay v Jared O’Loughnane & Ors

Sean Lindsay v Jared O’Loughnane & Ors

Consent and estoppel regarding the equitable charges were sufficiently raised by O'Loughnane's pleadings and in trial issues, and permission to amend is granted for French and Heaphy. The equitable charges did not breach the worldwide freezing order as consent was found or estoppel established. The French charge is enforceable; Mr Lindsay had no beneficial interest in the allegedly stolen money, and tracing principles do not support his claim. The charges secure both prior and subsequent advances. Permission to appeal is granted only on the worldwide freezing order/consent/estoppel/pleading aspects.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Sean Lindsay; First Defendant/respondent: Jared O'Loughnane; Second Respondent: Karen Drayton (as representative of the Estate of James French deceased); Third Respondent: Paul Drayton; Fourth Respondent: Andrew Heaphy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment, Application to Re Open Judgment and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application to re-open judgment refused; permission to amend pleadings granted; permission to appeal granted in part.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Orders, Pleadings and Amendments, Consent and Estoppel, Priority of Charges, Restitution, Tracing, Specific Performance, Costs
Civil Procedure Equity Injunctions Worldwide Freezing Orders Pleadings and Amendments Consent and Estoppel Priority of Charges Restitution +3 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 6 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Lindsay

Claimant/applicant

Jared O'Loughnane

First Defendant/respondent

Karen Drayton (as representative of the Estate of James French deceased)

Second Respondent

Paul Drayton

Third Respondent

Andrew Heaphy

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment, Application to Re Open Judgment and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent or estoppel regarding equitable charges was properly pleaded and can be relied upon
  2. 2 Whether the equitable charges breached the worldwide freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the French equitable charge should be unenforceable due to alleged receipt of stolen money

Ratio Decidendi

Consent and estoppel regarding the equitable charges were sufficiently raised by O'Loughnane's pleadings and in trial issues, and permission to amend is granted for French and Heaphy. The equitable charges did not breach the worldwide freezing order as consent was found or estoppel established. The French charge is enforceable; Mr Lindsay had no beneficial interest in the allegedly stolen money, and tracing principles do not support his claim. The charges secure both prior and subsequent advances. Permission to appeal is granted only on the worldwide freezing order/consent/estoppel/pleading aspects.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open judgment refused; permission to amend pleadings granted; permission to appeal granted in part.

Orders

  • Declaration that French and Heaphy equitable charges secure all lending (before and after execution) and are enforceable with priority over Lindsay's charging orders.
  • Adjournment of consequential orders with permission to apply.