Cardium Law Ltd v Kew Holdings Ltd

Cardium Law Ltd v Kew Holdings Ltd

The court found that Cardium had established a real risk of unjustified dissipation based on the cumulative effect of Kew's structure, history of non-payment, deliberate breaches, and lack of security proposals. Although there was a failure to disclose certain correspondence relevant to the imminence of dissipation, this was not material to the underlying risk and did not justify discharge of the freezing order. The limited freezing order should continue, with greater flexibility for Kew to deal with the property provided Cardium is notified and a minimum equity is retained.

Parties
Claimant: Cardium Law Limited; Defendant: Kew Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—continuation/discharge of Limited Freezing Order
Outcome
Limited freezing order continued with modifications; application to discharge refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Solicitors Act—contentious Business Agreement, Full and Frank Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Injunctions Contract Law Freezing Orders Solicitors Act—contentious Business Agreement Full and Frank Disclosure Risk of Dissipation Enforcement of Judgments

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cardium Law Limited

Claimant

Kew Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—continuation/discharge of Limited Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation justifying a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order should be discharged for failure to make full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the application for the freezing order should have been made without notice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Cardium had established a real risk of unjustified dissipation based on the cumulative effect of Kew's structure, history of non-payment, deliberate breaches, and lack of security proposals. Although there was a failure to disclose certain correspondence relevant to the imminence of dissipation, this was not material to the underlying risk and did not justify discharge of the freezing order. The limited freezing order should continue, with greater flexibility for Kew to deal with the property provided Cardium is notified and a minimum equity is retained.

Court Disposition

Limited freezing order continued with modifications; application to discharge refused.

Orders

  • Limited freezing order to continue until trial or further order.
  • Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the December order to be redrafted to allow Kew to dispose of or deal with the property provided it retains an equity of redemption or interest free of charges of at least £525,000 and gives written notice to Cardium prior to any legal commitment.