Thane Investments Ltd & Ors v Tomlinson & Ors

Thane Investments Ltd & Ors v Tomlinson & Ors

The freezing order was discharged because there was no evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Tomlinson or Reyall, and procedural requirements for ex parte orders were not complied with.

Parties
Claimant: Thane Investments Ltd; Claimant: Denbrae Limited; Claimant: Astim Limited; Claimant: Starborn Properties Limited; Defendant: Brian Tomlinson; Defendant: Reyall Business Consultants Ltd; Defendant: Malcolm Wagner; Defendant: The Grant Arms Hotel Ltd; Defendant: Launchfile Ltd; Defendant: Peter W Bretherton; Defendant: Pamela Tomlinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Discharge Freezing Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fiduciary Duty, Misfeasance, Procedural Compliance, Ex Parte Applications
Civil Procedure Company Law Freezing Injunctions Fiduciary Duty Misfeasance Procedural Compliance Ex Parte Applications

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thane Investments Ltd

Claimant

Denbrae Limited

Claimant

Astim Limited

Claimant

Starborn Properties Limited

Claimant

Brian Tomlinson

Defendant

Reyall Business Consultants Ltd

Defendant

Malcolm Wagner

Defendant

The Grant Arms Hotel Ltd

Defendant

Launchfile Ltd

Defendant

Peter W Bretherton

Defendant

Pamela Tomlinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Discharge Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against Mr Tomlinson and Reyall should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether procedural requirements for ex parte freezing orders were complied with
  3. 3 Whether there was evidence of real risk of dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order was discharged because there was no evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Tomlinson or Reyall, and procedural requirements for ex parte orders were not complied with.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • freezing order discharged
  • costs to appellants to be assessed if not agreed