Apollo XI Limited v Nexedge Markets Limited

Apollo XI Limited v Nexedge Markets Limited

The freezing injunction was discharged due to material non-disclosure and breach of duty of fair presentation by Apollo and its legal representatives. The context and background to the dispute, the circumstances of the recording, and the content of the recording were misrepresented or omitted. The Default Notice was defective and did not comply with contractual requirements. Apollo failed to establish a good arguable case for breach or risk of dissipation. The recording was confidential and its deployment was unjustified. The interests of justice required discharge of the order.

Parties
Claimant: Apollo XI Limited; Defendant: Nexedge Markets Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction Application and Discharge / Return Day Hearing and Discharge Application
Outcome
Order discharged; freezing injunction not continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Duty of Candour, Breach of Contract, Repudiatory Breach, Asset Dissipation, Confidentiality, Admissibility of Evidence
Civil Procedure Contract Law Injunctions Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Duty of Candour Breach of Contract Repudiatory Breach +3 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apollo XI Limited

Claimant

Nexedge Markets Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction Application and Discharge / Return Day Hearing and Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged for material non-disclosure and breach of duty of fair presentation
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for breach of contract and risk of dissipation
  3. 3 Whether the recording relied upon was obtained lawfully and can be deployed

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction was discharged due to material non-disclosure and breach of duty of fair presentation by Apollo and its legal representatives. The context and background to the dispute, the circumstances of the recording, and the content of the recording were misrepresented or omitted. The Default Notice was defective and did not comply with contractual requirements. Apollo failed to establish a good arguable case for breach or risk of dissipation. The recording was confidential and its deployment was unjustified. The interests of justice required discharge of the order.

Court Disposition

Order discharged; freezing injunction not continued.

Orders

  • The freezing injunction made on 16 April 2025 is discharged.
  • No continuation of the freezing order.