Harvey v Santander UK Plc [2023] EWHC 2947 (KB) (21 November 2023)

Harvey v Santander UK Plc [2023] EWHC 2947 (KB) (21 November 2023)

The application for an interim mandatory injunction was refused because the Claimant failed to provide documentary evidence to satisfy the court that the funds were legitimate and not proceeds of crime, and the Defendant was contractually entitled to freeze the account pending such evidence. The balance of convenience and the high threshold for mandatory injunctions were not met.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2947 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Michael John Harvey; Defendant: Santander UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Interim Mandatory Injunction Application (banking/freeze) / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for interim mandatory injunction refused; costs awarded to Defendant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Bank Account Freezing, Breach of Contract, Money Laundering, Bank's Contractual Rights, Summary Assessment of Costs
Banking Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Bank Account Freezing Breach of Contract Money Laundering Bank's Contractual Rights +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Harvey

Claimant

Santander UK PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Mandatory Injunction Application (banking/freeze) / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant bank was contractually entitled to freeze the Claimant's account and refuse to execute payment instructions
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to an interim mandatory injunction to unfreeze the account
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and urgency justify interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interim mandatory injunction was refused because the Claimant failed to provide documentary evidence to satisfy the court that the funds were legitimate and not proceeds of crime, and the Defendant was contractually entitled to freeze the account pending such evidence. The balance of convenience and the high threshold for mandatory injunctions were not met.

Court Disposition

Application for interim mandatory injunction refused; costs awarded to Defendant.

Orders

  • Application for interim mandatory injunction refused.
  • Claim re-allocated to CPR Part 7 procedure.