Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Okunola [2024] EWHC 2641 (KB) (18 October 2024)

Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Okunola [2024] EWHC 2641 (KB) (18 October 2024)

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested injunction because the application is brought by the Claimants to restrain conduct directed at their lawyers, who have not themselves brought a claim or application for relief. There is no cause of action between the lawyers and the Defendant before the court, and the established exceptions to the cause of action rule do not apply. The court's inherent jurisdiction and case management powers do not extend to granting such an injunction in these circumstances.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2641 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Titan Wealth Holdings Limited; Claimant: Titan Settlement & Custody Limited (formerly known as Global Prime Partners Limited); Claimant: Gretchen Roberts; Claimant: Tiffany Roberts; Defendant: Marian Atinuke Okunola
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Protective Injunction Pending Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application for protective injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Breach of Contract, Harassment, Case Management, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Harassment Media and Communications Interim Injunctions Breach of Confidence Breach of Contract Case Management Freedom of Expression

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Titan Wealth Holdings Limited

Claimant

Titan Settlement & Custody Limited (formerly known as Global Prime Partners Limited)

Claimant

Gretchen Roberts

Claimant

Tiffany Roberts

Claimant

Marian Atinuke Okunola

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Protective Injunction Pending Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a protective injunction restraining a defendant's communications with claimants' lawyers when the lawyers are not parties to the application and have not brought a claim for harassment.
  2. 2 Whether the application for an injunction meets the cause of action rule and the American Cyanamid test.
  3. 3 Whether the court's inherent jurisdiction or case management powers allow for such an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested injunction because the application is brought by the Claimants to restrain conduct directed at their lawyers, who have not themselves brought a claim or application for relief. There is no cause of action between the lawyers and the Defendant before the court, and the established exceptions to the cause of action rule do not apply. The court's inherent jurisdiction and case management powers do not extend to granting such an injunction in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for protective injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs.
  • Permission to appeal granted.