Thursfield v Thursfield

Thursfield v Thursfield

The freezing injunction and substituted service orders were properly made and should be continued, as any alleged non-disclosure or misstatement was immaterial and did not affect the outcome; further disclosure orders are justified due to the real possibility of undisclosed assets and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the court's orders.

Parties
Claimant: Linda Jane Thursfield; Defendant: David Thursfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Freezing Injunction and Substituted Service, and for Further Disclosure
Outcome
Applications to set aside freezing injunction and substituted service dismissed; freezing injunction and substituted service continued; further disclosure orders granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Substituted Service, Disclosure Orders, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Asset Dissipation, Pension Rights
Civil Procedure Family Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Freezing Injunctions Substituted Service Disclosure Orders Asset Dissipation Pension Rights

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

Civil / Ruling on Applications to Set Aside Freezing Injunction and Substituted Service, and for Further Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction and substituted service orders should be set aside for alleged non-disclosure or misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether further disclosure orders should be granted regarding the defendant's assets and source of funds
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's solicitors acted improperly in relation to enforcement and communication with third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction and substituted service orders were properly made and should be continued, as any alleged non-disclosure or misstatement was immaterial and did not affect the outcome; further disclosure orders are justified due to the real possibility of undisclosed assets and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the court's orders.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Freezing injunction continued
  • Order for substituted service continued