Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors [2005] EWHC 2668 (Ch) (23 November 2005)

Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors [2005] EWHC 2668 (Ch) (23 November 2005)

The consent order was set aside on the grounds of misrepresentation by Mr van Hoogstraten regarding his intention to be legally represented at trial and on the basis of supervening events (his decision not to attend trial or pay any judgment), both of which undermined the foundation of the consent order. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2668 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Ashgar Sabir Raja (representing the interests of the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja); Defendant: Mr Nicholas van Hoogstraten; Defendant: Stitchacre Limited; Defendant: Rarebargain Limited; Defendant: Castries Land Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Chancery Action / Application to Reimpose Freezing Order After Discharge by Consent Order
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Consent Orders, Misrepresentation, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Equity Freezing Orders Consent Orders Misrepresentation Interim Relief

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashgar Sabir Raja (representing the interests of the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja)

Claimant

Mr Nicholas van Hoogstraten

Defendant

Stitchacre Limited

Defendant

Rarebargain Limited

Defendant

Castries Land Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Action / Application to Reimpose Freezing Order After Discharge by Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order discharging the freezing order should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether a freezing order should be reimposed against Mr van Hoogstraten

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order was set aside on the grounds of misrepresentation by Mr van Hoogstraten regarding his intention to be legally represented at trial and on the basis of supervening events (his decision not to attend trial or pay any judgment), both of which undermined the foundation of the consent order. The freezing order was reimposed with an increased cap to reflect the claimant's increased costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Consent order set aside as against Mr van Hoogstraten
  • Freezing order reimposed against Mr van Hoogstraten with the cap increased from £5 million to £6 million