Barclays Bank Plc v Dylan & Ors [2022] EWHC 3721 (Ch) (05 July 2022)

Barclays Bank Plc v Dylan & Ors [2022] EWHC 3721 (Ch) (05 July 2022)

The respondents had ample opportunity to respond to the claimant's evidence, including matters arising after their own evidence was served. Most of the claimant's evidence was proper reply evidence. Any evidential difficulties faced by the respondents were of their own making. No unfairness would result from proceeding with the hearing as scheduled. The application for adjournment was refused.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3721 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Barclays Bank Plc; Defendant: Scott Dylan; Defendant: Gareth Michael Dylan; Defendant: Sally Ann Glover; Defendant: David Samuel Antrobus; Defendant: Fresh Thinking Group Limited; Defendant: James Mason; Defendant: INC Travel Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Preliminary Application for Adjournment of Return Hearing on Freezing Injunctions
Outcome
Adjournment application refused; return hearing to proceed as scheduled.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Adjournment Applications, Interim Relief, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Banking Law Freezing Injunctions Adjournment Applications Interim Relief Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank Plc

Claimant

Scott Dylan

Defendant

Gareth Michael Dylan

Defendant

Sally Ann Glover

Defendant

David Samuel Antrobus

Defendant

Fresh Thinking Group Limited

Defendant

James Mason

Defendant

INC Travel Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Civil Proceedings / Preliminary Application for Adjournment of Return Hearing on Freezing Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the return hearing for continuation of freezing injunctions should be adjourned to allow respondents to respond to new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the respondents would suffer unfairness if the hearing proceeded as scheduled

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents had ample opportunity to respond to the claimant's evidence, including matters arising after their own evidence was served. Most of the claimant's evidence was proper reply evidence. Any evidential difficulties faced by the respondents were of their own making. No unfairness would result from proceeding with the hearing as scheduled. The application for adjournment was refused.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application refused; return hearing to proceed as scheduled.

Orders

  • Return hearing for continuation of freezing injunctions to proceed after short adjournment for instructions.