J v H [2022] EWFC 133 (09 November 2022)
There was insufficient objective evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by the respondent. The applicant's suspicions were not substantiated by the facts, and the respondent had acted transparently. The procedural requirements for a freezing order were not fully met. The application was therefore dismissed.
- Citation
- [2022] EWFC 133
- Parties
- Applicant: J; Respondent: H
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 09 November 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Freezing Injunction Application in Family Proceedings / Judgment After Contested Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Freezing Injunctions, Asset Dissipation, Costs in Family Proceedings, Financial Remedies
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
J
Applicant
H
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction Application in Family Proceedings / Judgment After Contested Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established a solid risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing order
- 2 Whether the procedural and evidential requirements for a freezing injunction were met
Ratio Decidendi
There was insufficient objective evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by the respondent. The applicant's suspicions were not substantiated by the facts, and the respondent had acted transparently. The procedural requirements for a freezing order were not fully met. The application was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for freezing injunction refused
- Applicant to pay respondent's costs of £27,318, not to be enforced until conclusion of financial remedy proceedings
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment