Abbey Forwarding Ltd & Anor v Hone & Ors [2012] EWHC 3525 (Ch) (11 December 2012)

Abbey Forwarding Ltd & Anor v Hone & Ors [2012] EWHC 3525 (Ch) (11 December 2012)

Compensation under a cross-undertaking is limited to losses directly caused by the freezing order, which were foreseeable at the time of the order or notified in time for variation; most of the Defendants' claims failed on causation, remoteness, or lack of proper notice, except for the conceded tax surcharge claim.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3525 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Abbey Forwarding Limited (In Liquidation); Claimant: HM Revenue & Customs; Defendant: Richard John Hone; Defendant: Patrick Daniel Owen; Defendant: William James Owen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Inquiry Following Discharge of Freezing Order / Judgment on Liability Under Cross Undertaking
Outcome
Defendants' claims for compensation under the cross-undertaking dismissed except for the conceded tax surcharge claim.
Legal Topics
Cross Undertaking in Damages, Freezing Orders, Compensation for Losses, Causation and Remoteness, Mitigation of Loss
Civil Procedure Injunctions Company Law Cross Undertaking in Damages Freezing Orders Compensation for Losses Causation and Remoteness Mitigation of Loss

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

Parties

Abbey Forwarding Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

HM Revenue & Customs

Claimant

Richard John Hone

Defendant

Patrick Daniel Owen

Defendant

William James Owen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Inquiry Following Discharge of Freezing Order / Judgment on Liability Under Cross Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are entitled to compensation under the cross-undertaking following discharge of the freezing order
  2. 2 What losses are recoverable under the cross-undertaking
  3. 3 Applicable principles of causation, foreseeability, remoteness, and mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

Compensation under a cross-undertaking is limited to losses directly caused by the freezing order, which were foreseeable at the time of the order or notified in time for variation; most of the Defendants' claims failed on causation, remoteness, or lack of proper notice, except for the conceded tax surcharge claim.

Court Disposition

Defendants' claims for compensation under the cross-undertaking dismissed except for the conceded tax surcharge claim.

Orders

  • All heads of claim except the tax surcharge claim are dismissed.
  • Quantum of the tax surcharge claim to be determined at a later hearing.