BCS Corporate Acceptances v Terry [2017] EWHC 1176 (QB) (30 June 2017)

BCS Corporate Acceptances v Terry [2017] EWHC 1176 (QB) (30 June 2017)

The court has no jurisdiction to strike out a claim for abuse of process after judgment has been entered, as the claim merges in the judgment. The Defendant's application to discharge the worldwide freezing order is dismissed due to his lack of disclosure, implausible explanations regarding assets, and risk of asset dissipation. The committal application should not be struck out as there is at least an arguable breach of the freezing order. Security for costs would have been ordered if the strike-out application had proceeded.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1176
Parties
Claimant: BCS Corporate Acceptances; Defendant: Terry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Applications (including Strike Out, Set Aside, Committal, Security for Costs, and Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order)
Outcome
Defendant's applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out After Judgment, Worldwide Freezing Orders, Security for Costs, Committal for Contempt, Abuse of Process, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Fraud Asset Freezing Strike Out After Judgment Worldwide Freezing Orders Security for Costs Committal for Contempt Abuse of Process +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCS Corporate Acceptances

Claimant

Terry

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Applications (including Strike Out, Set Aside, Committal, Security for Costs, and Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim can be struck out for abuse of process after judgment has been entered
  2. 2 Whether the worldwide freezing order against the Defendant should be discharged
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant has breached the freezing order and is liable to committal for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction to strike out a claim for abuse of process after judgment has been entered, as the claim merges in the judgment. The Defendant's application to discharge the worldwide freezing order is dismissed due to his lack of disclosure, implausible explanations regarding assets, and risk of asset dissipation. The committal application should not be struck out as there is at least an arguable breach of the freezing order. Security for costs would have been ordered if the strike-out application had proceeded.

Court Disposition

Defendant's applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to strike out the Claimants' claims is dismissed.
  • Defendant's application to discharge the worldwide freezing order is dismissed.