Phoenix Group Foundation & Ors v Cochrane & Ors

Phoenix Group Foundation & Ors v Cochrane & Ors

Applicants failed to establish a good arguable case of risk of loss causally connected to the freezing orders in an amount exceeding the existing £1 million fortification; evidence was insufficient and speculative.

Parties
Claimant: Phoenix Group Foundation; Claimant: Minardi Investments Limited; Defendant: Dr Gail Alison Cochrane; Defendant: Gerald Martin Smith; Defendant: Dawna Marie Stickler; Defendant: Anthony Paul Smith; Defendant: Litigation Capital Limited; Defendant: Chepstow Property Co. Limited; Defendant: Brynna Property Co. Limited; Defendant: Llanharan Property Co. Limited; Defendant: SCDS Corporation, Inc.; Defendant: Dunedin Holdings Limited; Defendant: Coegi Properties Limited; Defendant: Burtonwood Dev. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Further Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Fortification, Property Development Finance
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Cross Undertaking in Damages Fortification Property Development Finance

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phoenix Group Foundation

Claimant

Minardi Investments Limited

Claimant

Dr Gail Alison Cochrane

Defendant

Gerald Martin Smith

Defendant

Dawna Marie Stickler

Defendant

Anthony Paul Smith

Defendant

Litigation Capital Limited

Defendant

Chepstow Property Co. Limited

Defendant

Brynna Property Co. Limited

Defendant

Llanharan Property Co. Limited

Defendant

SCDS Corporation, Inc.

Defendant

Dunedin Holdings Limited

Defendant

Coegi Properties Limited

Defendant

Burtonwood Dev. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Further Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages is required for non-cause of action defendants under freezing orders
  2. 2 Whether applicants have established a good arguable case of risk of loss causally connected to the freezing orders

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to establish a good arguable case of risk of loss causally connected to the freezing orders in an amount exceeding the existing £1 million fortification; evidence was insufficient and speculative.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No further fortification of cross-undertaking in damages ordered
  • Existing fortification of £1 million remains in place