C v C & Anor

C v C & Anor

The court lacks jurisdiction under s.37 MCA 1973 to grant a freezing order restraining the respondents from managing company assets where the companies are not alter egos of the parties and the assets are not beneficially owned by them. There was no sufficient evidence of intention to dissipate assets or defeat financial claims, and the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure in the without notice application. The injunction improperly interfered with the respondents' duties as directors and the management of third-party companies. The application for continuation of the freezing order is dismissed, subject to undertakings offered by the respondents.

Parties
Applicant: C; 1st Respondent: C; 2nd Respondent: Anor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Family Financial Remedy / Interlocutory Application for Continuation or Discharge of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Application for continuation of freezing order dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction, Disclosure Obligations, Director Duties, Interim Remedies
Family Law Company Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Corporate Veil Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligations Director Duties +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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

C

1st Respondent

Anor

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce / Family Financial Remedy / Interlocutory Application for Continuation or Discharge of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to continue or discharge freezing injunctions against parties and non-parties in family proceedings involving company assets
  2. 2 Whether the actions of the respondents justified the grant or continuation of a freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the applicant made full and frank disclosure in the without notice application

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction under s.37 MCA 1973 to grant a freezing order restraining the respondents from managing company assets where the companies are not alter egos of the parties and the assets are not beneficially owned by them. There was no sufficient evidence of intention to dissipate assets or defeat financial claims, and the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure in the without notice application. The injunction improperly interfered with the respondents' duties as directors and the management of third-party companies. The application for continuation of the freezing order is dismissed, subject to undertakings offered by the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application for continuation of freezing order dismissed

Orders

  • Freezing order not reinstated; undertakings by W and N to the court accepted as sufficient protection
  • Liberty to apply for costs submissions at formal handing down of judgment