381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Limited v Click St Andrews Limited & Ors.

381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Limited v Click St Andrews Limited & Ors.

The applicants established a good arguable case against Click St Andrews and Click Holdings but not against Click Above. There is a real risk of dissipation of Click St Andrews' assets due to lack of transparency and unexplained intra-group transfers. Although there was a failure of full and frank disclosure, it was not deliberate and was caused in part by respondents' lack of cooperation. The interests of justice require continuation of the freezing injunction against Click St Andrews only, with specified permissions for certain payments and transactions. No injunction is justified against Click Holdings or Click Above.

Parties
Applicants: 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Limited & Others; Respondent: Click St Andrews Limited; Respondent: Click Group Holdings Limited; Respondent: Click Above Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Application (freezing Injunction) in Civil/commercial Dispute / Return Date Hearing on Interim Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued against Click St Andrews Limited only; discharged as against Click Holdings and Click Above.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Remedial Works Liability, Intra Group Transactions
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Remedial Works Liability Intra Group Transactions

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Limited & Others

Applicants

Click St Andrews Limited

Respondent

Click Group Holdings Limited

Respondent

Click Above Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Application (freezing Injunction) in Civil/commercial Dispute / Return Date Hearing on Interim Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim freezing injunction should be continued against the respondents
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the applicants at the without notice hearing
  3. 3 Whether there is a good arguable case against each respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants established a good arguable case against Click St Andrews and Click Holdings but not against Click Above. There is a real risk of dissipation of Click St Andrews' assets due to lack of transparency and unexplained intra-group transfers. Although there was a failure of full and frank disclosure, it was not deliberate and was caused in part by respondents' lack of cooperation. The interests of justice require continuation of the freezing injunction against Click St Andrews only, with specified permissions for certain payments and transactions. No injunction is justified against Click Holdings or Click Above.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued against Click St Andrews Limited only; discharged as against Click Holdings and Click Above.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction continued against Click St Andrews Limited up to £1,250,000 until trial or further order.
  • Click St Andrews permitted to make specified payments for legal fees, trade creditors, and sale-related costs as detailed in the judgment.