Standing v Power

Standing v Power

The defendant failed to demonstrate a sufficient risk of loss or causation between the injunction and any alleged loss. There was no credible evidence of a real likelihood of a sale to Able at £7.5 million, nor of imminent insolvency. The requirements for fortification were not met, and the application was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Standing; Defendant: Lee Power
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Fortification of Cross Undertaking, Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Football Club Ownership
Civil Procedure Injunctions Fortification of Cross Undertaking Trusts Beneficial Ownership Football Club Ownership

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Standing

Claimant

Lee Power

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to fortification of the claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages in respect of an injunction preventing dealings in shares and assets of Swindon Town Football Club
  2. 2 Whether there is a sufficient risk of loss to require fortification
  3. 3 Whether the injunction caused any loss to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate a sufficient risk of loss or causation between the injunction and any alleged loss. There was no credible evidence of a real likelihood of a sale to Able at £7.5 million, nor of imminent insolvency. The requirements for fortification were not met, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Power’s application for fortification is dismissed.
  • Mr Standing is entitled to his costs of defending the application, subject to assessment or agreement.