Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Tominey [2012] EWHC 3924 (Ch) (26 November 2012)

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v Tominey [2012] EWHC 3924 (Ch) (26 November 2012)

Permission granted for claimant to disclose information obtained under court orders to the Regulator and Police, as regulatory obligations and public interest outweigh any implied undertaking restricting use; privilege against self-incrimination does not prevent disclosure of bank-derived information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3924 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Bernard Christopher Tominey; Defendant/respondent: Jack Tominey; Defendant/respondent: Procurematrix Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Commark Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Business Phones and Networks Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Fourth, Eighth and Ninth Respondents/Defendants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Continuation and Variation of Freezing Orders / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; claimant permitted to disclose information to Regulator and Police; costs awarded to claimant against first, fifth and tenth defendants; costs reserved as against other defendants pending further application.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Disclosure of Information, Regulatory Compliance, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Costs
Civil Procedure Regulatory Law Fraud Freezing Orders Disclosure of Information Regulatory Compliance Privilege Against Self Incrimination 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd.

Claimant/applicant

Bernard Christopher Tominey

Defendant/respondent

Jack Tominey

Defendant/respondent

Procurematrix Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Commark Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Business Phones and Networks Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Fourth, Eighth and Ninth Respondents/Defendants

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Continuation and Variation of Freezing Orders / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant may disclose information obtained under court orders to the Regulator and Police
  2. 2 Whether privilege against self-incrimination or oppression/unfairness prevents such disclosure
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded for this application

Ratio Decidendi

Permission granted for claimant to disclose information obtained under court orders to the Regulator and Police, as regulatory obligations and public interest outweigh any implied undertaking restricting use; privilege against self-incrimination does not prevent disclosure of bank-derived information.

Court Disposition

Application granted; claimant permitted to disclose information to Regulator and Police; costs awarded to claimant against first, fifth and tenth defendants; costs reserved as against other defendants pending further application.

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to disclose information obtained under court orders to Homes and Communities Agency and Police.
  • Claimant awarded costs in any event against first, fifth and tenth defendants.