Thursfield v Thursfield [2011] EWHC 3539 (Ch) (06 December 2011)

Thursfield v Thursfield [2011] EWHC 3539 (Ch) (06 December 2011)

No material non-disclosure or misrepresentation occurred sufficient to justify discharge of the freezing injunction or substituted service order; claimant demonstrated real advantage in English proceedings for enforcement; further disclosure orders are necessary and proportionate given risk of undisclosed assets and asset dissipation.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3539 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Linda Jane Thursfield; Defendant: David Thursfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment and Ancillary Relief / Interlocutory Applications: Challenge to Freezing Injunction, Substituted Service, Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Applications to discharge freezing injunction and set aside substituted service refused; freezing order and substituted service continued; further disclosure orders granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Disclosure Orders, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Asset Dissipation, Pension Rights
Civil Procedure Family Law International Enforcement Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Disclosure Orders Service Out of Jurisdiction Asset Dissipation +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Jane Thursfield

Claimant

David Thursfield

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment and Ancillary Relief / Interlocutory Applications: Challenge to Freezing Injunction, Substituted Service, Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged for material non-disclosure or misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether permission for service out of jurisdiction and substituted service should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether further disclosure orders should be granted regarding assets and funding

Ratio Decidendi

No material non-disclosure or misrepresentation occurred sufficient to justify discharge of the freezing injunction or substituted service order; claimant demonstrated real advantage in English proceedings for enforcement; further disclosure orders are necessary and proportionate given risk of undisclosed assets and asset dissipation.

Court Disposition

Applications to discharge freezing injunction and set aside substituted service refused; freezing order and substituted service continued; further disclosure orders granted.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction continued
  • Order for substituted service continued