Cardium Law Ltd v Kew Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1299 (Ch) (17 May 2021)

Cardium Law Ltd v Kew Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1299 (Ch) (17 May 2021)

Cardium established a real risk of unjustified dissipation of Kew's assets, justifying continuation of a limited freezing order. While 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 warrant discharge of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1299 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Cardium Law Limited; Defendant: Kew Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order
Outcome
Limited freezing order continued with variation
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Without Notice Applications, Full and Frank Disclosure, Solicitors Act 1974 Section 61(2), Conditional Fee Agreements, Risk of Dissipation, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Injunctions Trusts and Property Freezing Orders Without Notice Applications Full and Frank Disclosure Solicitors Act 1974 Section 61(2) Conditional Fee Agreements +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cardium Law Limited

Claimant

Kew Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets justifying a freezing order against Kew Holdings Limited
  2. 2 Whether Cardium failed to make full and frank disclosure on the without notice application
  3. 3 Whether the freezing order should be continued, varied, or discharged

Ratio Decidendi

Cardium established a real risk of unjustified dissipation of Kew's assets, justifying continuation of a limited freezing order. While 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 warrant discharge of the order. The freezing order should be varied to give Kew greater flexibility, provided Cardium is notified and a minimum equity is retained.

Court Disposition

Limited freezing order continued with variation

Orders

  • Limited freezing order to continue until trial or further order, subject to variation allowing Kew to deal with the property provided it retains at least £525,000 equity and gives prior written notice to Cardium.
  • Parties to agree appropriate wording for the varied order.