Standing v Power [2020] EWHC 1173 (Ch) (15 May 2020)

Standing v Power [2020] EWHC 1173 (Ch) (15 May 2020)

The defendant failed to prove a real risk of loss caused by the injunction, as there was insufficient evidence of a genuine sale at £7.5 million, no causative link to the injunction, and no adequate quantification of loss. The application for fortification was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1173 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Standing; Defendant: Lee Power
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages / Interlocutory Judgment on Fortification Application
Outcome
Application for fortification dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Football Club Ownership, Fortification of Undertakings
Civil Procedure Equity Sports Law Interim Injunctions Cross Undertaking in Damages Trusts Beneficial Ownership Football Club Ownership +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Standing

Claimant

Lee Power

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages / Interlocutory Judgment on Fortification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's cross-undertaking in damages should be fortified
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of loss to the defendant caused by the injunction
  3. 3 Adequacy of claimant's assets to support the cross-undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove a real risk of loss caused by the injunction, as there was insufficient evidence of a genuine sale at £7.5 million, no causative link to the injunction, and no adequate quantification of loss. The application for fortification was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for fortification dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to costs of defending the application
  • Summary assessment of costs to be made if not agreed