Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Ltd v McBride

Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Ltd v McBride

The court found that the allegations of serious and systematic fraud against Mr McBride, reinforced by subsequent evidence and his conduct regarding asset declarations and trust property, justify a real risk of asset dissipation. No material change in circumstances was shown to warrant discharge of the injunction, and any non-disclosure by SMPT was not sufficiently serious to affect the outcome. The application to discharge the freezing order is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Limited; Defendant/applicant: James McBride
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Freezing Injunction / Post Injunction, Pre Trial
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraud, Professional Negligence, Breach of Duty, Asset Dissipation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Fraud Professional Negligence Breach of Duty Asset Dissipation

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephens McBride Piercy Taylor Limited

Claimant/respondent

James McBride

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Freezing Injunction / Post Injunction, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by Mr McBride justifying continuation of the freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether SMPT failed to make full disclosure at the without notice hearing
  3. 3 Whether delay in applying for the injunction or seeking its discharge affects the court's discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the allegations of serious and systematic fraud against Mr McBride, reinforced by subsequent evidence and his conduct regarding asset declarations and trust property, justify a real risk of asset dissipation. No material change in circumstances was shown to warrant discharge of the injunction, and any non-disclosure by SMPT was not sufficiently serious to affect the outcome. The application to discharge the freezing order is dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Freezing Order made by Mr Justice Leggatt on 8 May 2013 remains in force
  • Application to discharge the Freezing Order is dismissed