Property Services LDN Ltd v Nash & Ors [2022] EWHC 1330 (QB) (26 May 2022)

Property Services LDN Ltd v Nash & Ors [2022] EWHC 1330 (QB) (26 May 2022)

The injunction was discharged because the Claimant deliberately failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including the existence of Receivers and the mortgage, and the transaction relied upon was found to be a sham designed to prevent the Receivers from selling the properties at auction. The breach of duty was fundamental and deprived the Claimant of any equitable relief.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1330 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Property Services LDN Ltd; Defendant: Miss Sue Elise Nash; Third Party/interested Party (fixed Term Receiver): Mr Steven Williams; Third Party/interested Party (fixed Term Receiver): Mr Gary Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Injunction (return Date) / Application to Continue, Vary, or Discharge Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Receivership, Full and Frank Disclosure, Mortgage Enforcement, Equitable Relief
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Injunctions Receivership Full and Frank Disclosure Mortgage Enforcement Equitable Relief

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

Parties

Property Services LDN Ltd

Claimant

Miss Sue Elise Nash

Defendant

Mr Steven Williams

Third Party/interested Party (fixed Term Receiver)

Mr Gary Williams

Third Party/interested Party (fixed Term Receiver)

Procedural Posture

Injunction (return Date) / Application to Continue, Vary, or Discharge Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction should be continued, varied, or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure on the without notice application
  3. 3 Whether the transaction between Claimant and Defendant was genuine or a sham

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged because the Claimant deliberately failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including the existence of Receivers and the mortgage, and the transaction relied upon was found to be a sham designed to prevent the Receivers from selling the properties at auction. The breach of duty was fundamental and deprived the Claimant of any equitable relief.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged

Orders

  • The interim injunction granted on 12 May 2022 is discharged.
  • No further order for continuation, variation, or renewal of the injunction.