J&J Snacks Food Corporation & Anor v Ralph Peters & Sons Limited & Anor

J&J Snacks Food Corporation & Anor v Ralph Peters & Sons Limited & Anor

This is an abnormal case due to the long litigation history, lack of direct evidence of risk of dissipation, and the defendants' roles as holding company and director. The usual position of requiring asset disclosure before the return date is displaced. Time for compliance with asset disclosure under the freezing order is extended until the adjourned return date; defendants must swear affidavits per the existing order but need not serve them until that hearing.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: J&J Snack Foods Corporation; Applicant/claimant: ICEE Corporation; Respondent/defendant: Ralph Peters & Sons Limited; Respondent/defendant: Mark Peters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Extend Time for Asset Disclosure Under Freezing Order
Outcome
Application to extend time for asset disclosure granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Unjust Enrichment
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Trade Mark Infringement Passing Off Unjust Enrichment

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J&J Snack Foods Corporation

Applicant/claimant

ICEE Corporation

Applicant/claimant

Ralph Peters & Sons Limited

Respondent/defendant

Mark Peters

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Extend Time for Asset Disclosure Under Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the defendants' time for compliance with asset disclosure under the freezing order be extended until the adjourned return date?
  2. 2 Is the risk of dissipation of assets sufficient to justify immediate disclosure?
  3. 3 Are the claims against the defendants properly constituted given their roles as holding company and director?

Ratio Decidendi

This is an abnormal case due to the long litigation history, lack of direct evidence of risk of dissipation, and the defendants' roles as holding company and director. The usual position of requiring asset disclosure before the return date is displaced. Time for compliance with asset disclosure under the freezing order is extended until the adjourned return date; defendants must swear affidavits per the existing order but need not serve them until that hearing.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time for asset disclosure granted.

Orders

  • Defendants required to swear affidavits of asset disclosure in accordance with existing order but not to serve them pending adjourned return date.
  • No final determination on continuation of freezing order; matter to be decided at adjourned return date.