J v H [2022] EWFC 133 (09 November 2022)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J

Applicant

H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction Application in Family Proceedings / Judgment After Contested Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a solid risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing order
  2. 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