C v C & Anor [2015] EWHC 2795 (Fam) (30 September 2015)

C v C & Anor [2015] EWHC 2795 (Fam) (30 September 2015)

The court found that the statutory and equitable requirements for the continuation of the freezing injunction were not met. There was insufficient evidence of an intention by W or N to dissipate assets or defeat H's financial claims, and the injunction as framed improperly interfered with the operation of third party companies and N's new business. The proper course was to discharge the injunction and rely on undertakings or holding agreements to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the financial remedy proceedings.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2795 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: C; 1st Respondent: C (the husband); 2nd Respondent: N (the younger son)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Family Division Financial Remedy / Injunction Application / Reserved Judgment on Applications to Continue or Discharge Freezing Injunctions
Outcome
Injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Jurisdiction Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Jurisdiction Under Senior Courts Act 1981, Corporate Personality and Family Companies, Preservation of Matrimonial Assets, Directors' Fiduciary Duties
Family Law Company Law Injunctions Freezing Injunctions Jurisdiction Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Jurisdiction Under Senior Courts Act 1981 Corporate Personality and Family Companies Preservation of Matrimonial Assets +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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

C (the husband)

1st Respondent

N (the younger son)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Division Financial Remedy / Injunction Application / Reserved Judgment on Applications to Continue or Discharge Freezing Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant or continue freezing injunctions against family company directors under s.37 MCA 1973 and/or s.37 SCA 1981
  2. 2 Whether the actions of W and N justified the continuation of the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the injunction improperly interfered with the operation of third party companies and N's new business

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statutory and equitable requirements for the continuation of the freezing injunction were not met. There was insufficient evidence of an intention by W or N to dissipate assets or defeat H's financial claims, and the injunction as framed improperly interfered with the operation of third party companies and N's new business. The proper course was to discharge the injunction and rely on undertakings or holding agreements to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the financial remedy proceedings.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged

Orders

  • The freezing injunction is discharged.
  • The parties are to preserve the status quo via undertakings or holding agreements pending further order.