Tolmie & Anor (Trustees of the Nicholas Savage Foundation) v Taylor & Anor

Tolmie & Anor (Trustees of the Nicholas Savage Foundation) v Taylor & Anor

The freezing injunction should not be discharged as against the second defendant because there remain legitimate concerns about the existence of hidden assets, and no material change of circumstances has been demonstrated. The injunction will be varied to permit payment of the American Express bill and reasonable legal expenses, but not discharged or replaced by undertakings.

Parties
Claimant: The Trustees of the Nicholas Savage Foundation; Claimant: Andrew Iain Tolmie; Claimant: Judith Weingarten; Defendant: Pia Elizabeth Taylor; Defendant: Dennis Joseph Massey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts/probate / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Applications to vary the freezing injunction to permit payment of the American Express bill and legal expenses allowed; application to discharge the freezing injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Dissipation of Assets, Legal Expenses, Variation/discharge of Injunction
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Freezing Injunction Dissipation of Assets Legal Expenses Variation/discharge of Injunction

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

Parties

The Trustees of the Nicholas Savage Foundation

Claimant

Andrew Iain Tolmie

Claimant

Judith Weingarten

Claimant

Pia Elizabeth Taylor

Defendant

Dennis Joseph Massey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts/probate / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing injunction should be discharged as against the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the freezing injunction should be varied to permit payment of a credit card debt
  3. 3 Whether the freezing injunction should be varied to permit payment of legal expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing injunction should not be discharged as against the second defendant because there remain legitimate concerns about the existence of hidden assets, and no material change of circumstances has been demonstrated. The injunction will be varied to permit payment of the American Express bill and reasonable legal expenses, but not discharged or replaced by undertakings.

Court Disposition

Applications to vary the freezing injunction to permit payment of the American Express bill and legal expenses allowed; application to discharge the freezing injunction refused.

Orders

  • Second defendant permitted to pay £9,080.16 to American Express from frozen accounts.
  • Second defendant permitted to withdraw up to £53,290 (including VAT) from frozen accounts for legal expenses.