ND v KP [2011] EWHC 457 (Fam) (10 February 2011)

ND v KP [2011] EWHC 457 (Fam) (10 February 2011)

The applicant failed to provide objective, contemporaneous evidence of a real risk of imminent asset dissipation; the matters relied upon were stale, unparticularised, or unsupported by facts. The ex parte application was unjustified, and the duty of candour was breached. The freezing order must be discharged ab initio and the Swiss mirror order must be discharged as its existence is oppressive and vexatious.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 457 (Fam)
Parties
Petitioner: ND; Respondent: KP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief Proceedings (freezing Injunction) in Divorce / Interlocutory Application for Continuation/discharge of Ex Parte Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing order discharged ab initio; application for continuation refused; respondent's cross-application granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Ancillary Relief, Duty of Candour, Ex Parte Applications, Asset Dissipation, Inherent Jurisdiction, Section 37 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Family Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Ancillary Relief Duty of Candour Ex Parte Applications Asset Dissipation Inherent Jurisdiction +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ND

Petitioner

KP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief Proceedings (freezing Injunction) in Divorce / Interlocutory Application for Continuation/discharge of Ex Parte Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte freezing order should be continued or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the applicant met the threshold for a freezing injunction under statutory or inherent jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with the duty of candour on an ex parte application

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide objective, contemporaneous evidence of a real risk of imminent asset dissipation; the matters relied upon were stale, unparticularised, or unsupported by facts. The ex parte application was unjustified, and the duty of candour was breached. The freezing order must be discharged ab initio and the Swiss mirror order must be discharged as its existence is oppressive and vexatious.

Court Disposition

Freezing order discharged ab initio; application for continuation refused; respondent's cross-application granted.

Orders

  • Discharge of the ex parte freezing order from inception
  • Order requiring the wife to obtain discharge of the Swiss mirror order