Abbey Forwarding Ltd & Anor v Hone & Ors

Abbey Forwarding Ltd & Anor v Hone & Ors

Except for the tax surcharge and marble claims, all special damages claims fail as losses were not caused by the freezing order, were too remote, not foreseeable, or not properly mitigated. Defendants are entitled to general damages for emotional distress caused by the wrongly granted freezing order, subject to further argument on aggravated damages and quantum.

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 Under Cross Undertaking in Damages / Judgment on Liability, Quantum Reserved
Outcome
Special damages claims dismissed except for tax surcharge and marble claim; Defendants entitled to general damages for emotional distress, quantum reserved; aggravated damages subject to further argument.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertakings in Damages, Compensation for Wrongly Granted Injunctions, General and Aggravated Damages, Mitigation, Causation, Remoteness
Civil Procedure Injunctions Company Law Freezing Orders Cross Undertakings in Damages Compensation for Wrongly Granted Injunctions General and Aggravated Damages Mitigation +2 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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 Under Cross Undertaking in Damages / Judgment on Liability, Quantum Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether losses claimed by Defendants are recoverable under the cross-undertaking in damages given for the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether losses are too remote or not foreseeable
  3. 3 Whether Defendants failed to mitigate losses

Ratio Decidendi

Except for the tax surcharge and marble claims, all special damages claims fail as losses were not caused by the freezing order, were too remote, not foreseeable, or not properly mitigated. Defendants are entitled to general damages for emotional distress caused by the wrongly granted freezing order, subject to further argument on aggravated damages and quantum.

Court Disposition

Special damages claims dismissed except for tax surcharge and marble claim; Defendants entitled to general damages for emotional distress, quantum reserved; aggravated damages subject to further argument.

Orders

  • Defendants entitled to compensation for marble transaction (Mr P. Owen) and tax surcharge (Mr P. Owen)
  • General damages for emotional distress to be assessed at subsequent hearing