Mold Investments Limited v Matthew Joseph Holloway & Ors

Mold Investments Limited v Matthew Joseph Holloway & Ors

Given the exceptional nature of the asset freezing relief, the seriousness of the allegations, and the emergence of new evidence regarding the authenticity of key communications, D1 is permitted to proceed with the set aside application, including cross-examination and expert evidence, provided that full particulars...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mold Investments Limited; First Defendant/applicant: Matthew Joseph Holloway; Second Defendant: Andrew Mark Jacques; Defendant: Ellie-Mae Holloway; Defendant: Jack Holloway; Defendant: Adam John Holloway; Defendant: Ian Fenny; Defendant: Thorncliffe Building Supplies Limited; Part 20 Defendant: George Adam Taylor; Part 20 Defendant: Patrick Hughes; Claimant/respondent: Joseph Holloway (Holdings) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Directions Ruling on Set Aside Application for Asset Freezing Injunctions
Outcome
Permission granted for D1 to proceed with set aside application, including cross-examination and expert evidence, subject to provision of full particulars; costs in the application.
Legal Topics
Asset Freezing Injunctions, Fraud on the Court, Non Disclosure, Interim Relief, Expert Evidence, Cross Examination, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity Asset Freezing Injunctions Fraud on the Court Non Disclosure Interim Relief Expert Evidence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mold Investments Limited

Claimant/respondent

Matthew Joseph Holloway

First Defendant/applicant

Andrew Mark Jacques

Second Defendant

Ellie-Mae Holloway

Defendant

Jack Holloway

Defendant

Adam John Holloway

Defendant

Ian Fenny

Defendant

Thorncliffe Building Supplies Limited

Defendant

George Adam Taylor

Part 20 Defendant

Patrick Hughes

Part 20 Defendant

Joseph Holloway (Holdings) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Directions Ruling on Set Aside Application for Asset Freezing Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D1 should be permitted to proceed with a set aside application for asset freezing injunctions
  2. 2 Whether cross-examination and expert evidence should be allowed at the interlocutory stage
  3. 3 Whether D1's application is barred by prior procedural steps or delay

Ratio Decidendi

Given the exceptional nature of the asset freezing relief, the seriousness of the allegations, and the emergence of new evidence regarding the authenticity of key communications, D1 is permitted to proceed with the set aside application, including cross-examination and expert evidence, provided that full particulars of allegations are supplied within a short period. Prior procedural steps and delay do not bar the application as new material evidence was not reasonably available earlier.

Court Disposition

Permission granted for D1 to proceed with set aside application, including cross-examination and expert evidence, subject to provision of full particulars; costs in the application.

Orders

  • D1 to provide full particulars of allegations against Mr O’Grady, Mr Hazlehurst, and others within a short period.
  • Permission for cross-examination of all factual witnesses whose statements have been produced, except solicitors.