Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch) (15 July 2003)

Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch) (15 July 2003)

The application to vary or revoke the prior order fails because there was no material change of circumstances or evidence that the Deputy Judge was misled; the defendant's failure to raise the freezing orders and asset values at the original hearing precludes reconsideration at this stage; the proper course is appeal, not re-argument before the same court.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Limited; Defendant: Christen Ager-Hanssen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application to Vary or Revoke Prior Order; Post Judgment Enforcement
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Freezing Orders, Variation of Court Orders, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Contract Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Freezing Orders Variation of Court Orders Enforcement of Judgments

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Limited

Claimant

Christen Ager-Hanssen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application to Vary or Revoke Prior Order; Post Judgment Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary or revoke the order requiring payment into court as a condition for setting aside default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the existence of freezing orders over the defendant's assets justifies variation of the order
  3. 3 Whether the prior order was obtained on a materially false basis

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary or revoke the prior order fails because there was no material change of circumstances or evidence that the Deputy Judge was misled; the defendant's failure to raise the freezing orders and asset values at the original hearing precludes reconsideration at this stage; the proper course is appeal, not re-argument before the same court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to vary or revoke the order of the Deputy Judge is refused.
  • No variation of the payment condition; enforcement may proceed.