Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

The consent order was set aside on the grounds of misrepresentation by Mr van Hoogstraten as to his intention to be legally represented at trial, and due to supervening events (his decision not to attend or participate in the trial and to frustrate enforcement of any judgment) which undermined the basis of the consent order. The freezing order was reimposed with an increased cap to reflect additional costs.

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 Consent Order Discharged It
Outcome
Application granted; consent order set aside; freezing order reimposed against Mr van Hoogstraten with increased cap.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Consent Orders, Setting Aside Orders, Misrepresentation, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Equity Freezing Orders Consent Orders Setting Aside Orders Misrepresentation Interim 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 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 Consent Order Discharged It

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order discharging the freezing order against Mr van Hoogstraten 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 as to his intention to be legally represented at trial, and due to supervening events (his decision not to attend or participate in the trial and to frustrate enforcement of any judgment) which undermined the basis of the consent order. The freezing order was reimposed with an increased cap to reflect additional costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted; consent order set aside; freezing order reimposed against Mr van Hoogstraten with increased cap.

Orders

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