Moss & Ors v Martin & Anor [2022] EWHC 2385 (Comm) (22 September 2022)

Moss & Ors v Martin & Anor [2022] EWHC 2385 (Comm) (22 September 2022)

Although there is probable cause to believe the Defendants may not return to the jurisdiction, the Claimants have not established that their absence would materially prejudice the prosecution of the action or the effectiveness of any current order. The passport order is no longer ancillary to any ongoing process or order requiring the Defendants' presence, and its continued retention would be a disproportionate restriction on liberty. Therefore, the passport order should be discharged and the Defendants' passports returned.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2385 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: David Tyler Moss; Claimant: Brandon Gabriel Keating; Claimant: Fidelissimus LLC; Defendant: Brian Martin; Defendant: Holly Susan Bone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; passport order discharged and passports to be returned to Defendants; application to vary living expenses adjourned for further submissions.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Passport Orders, Asset Disclosure, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction, Ancillary Relief
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Injunctions Freezing Orders Passport Orders Asset Disclosure Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Tyler Moss

Claimant

Brandon Gabriel Keating

Claimant

Fidelissimus LLC

Claimant

Brian Martin

Defendant

Holly Susan Bone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the passport order preventing the Defendants from leaving the jurisdiction should be discharged or suspended
  2. 2 Whether the amount permitted for Defendants' living expenses under the freezing order should be increased and/or varied for one-off expenditures

Ratio Decidendi

Although there is probable cause to believe the Defendants may not return to the jurisdiction, the Claimants have not established that their absence would materially prejudice the prosecution of the action or the effectiveness of any current order. The passport order is no longer ancillary to any ongoing process or order requiring the Defendants' presence, and its continued retention would be a disproportionate restriction on liberty. Therefore, the passport order should be discharged and the Defendants' passports returned.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; passport order discharged and passports to be returned to Defendants; application to vary living expenses adjourned for further submissions.

Orders

  • The passport order is discharged and the Claimants' solicitors must return the Defendants' passports.
  • Liberty to apply for a new passport order if justified by future applications requiring Defendants' presence.