Bord na Móna Horticulture Limited v Stephen Washington & Ors

Bord na Móna Horticulture Limited v Stephen Washington & Ors

The claimant failed to adduce solid evidence capable of giving rise to an inference of a real risk, judged objectively, that a future judgment would not be met because of unjustifiable dissipation by Mr Washington of his assets; therefore, the undertakings should be discharged.

Parties
Claimant: Bord Na Móna Horticulture Ltd.; First Defendant/applicant: Stephen Washington; Second Defendant: Gillian Mary Washington; Third Defendant: Susan Joan Harden; Fourth Defendant: Carol Moore; Fifth Defendant: SWW Land Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Application for Discharge of Undertakings Given in Lieu of Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Application allowed; undertakings discharged.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Full and Frank Disclosure, Costs
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Warranty Full and Frank Disclosure Costs

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

Parties

Bord Na Móna Horticulture Ltd.

Claimant

Stephen Washington

First Defendant/applicant

Gillian Mary Washington

Second Defendant

Susan Joan Harden

Third Defendant

Carol Moore

Fourth Defendant

SWW Land Ltd.

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Application for Discharge of Undertakings Given in Lieu of Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by the first defendant sufficient to justify a freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether the claimant failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's conduct in policing undertakings was oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to adduce solid evidence capable of giving rise to an inference of a real risk, judged objectively, that a future judgment would not be met because of unjustifiable dissipation by Mr Washington of his assets; therefore, the undertakings should be discharged.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; undertakings discharged.

Orders

  • First defendant discharged from undertakings given in lieu of freezing injunction.
  • Claimant to pay first defendant's costs of original freezing injunction and variations.