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 power to strike out a claim after judgment has been entered, as the cause of action merges in the judgment. The Defendant's application to strike out the claim is misconceived. The freezing order should not be discharged as the Defendant has not fully disclosed his assets and there is a real risk of dissipation. The Defendant's application to strike out the committal application is also dismissed 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 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: BCS Corporate Acceptances; Defendant: Terry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Applications (strike Out, Set Aside, Committal, Security for Costs, Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order)
Outcome
Defendant's applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out After Judgment, Freezing Orders, Security for Costs, Committal for Contempt, Abuse of Process, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Fraud Injunctions Strike Out After Judgment 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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCS Corporate Acceptances

Claimant

Terry

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim can be struck out after judgment has been entered
  2. 2 Whether the worldwide freezing order should be discharged for delay or lack of necessity
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant breached the freezing order and is liable for committal

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no power to strike out a claim after judgment has been entered, as the cause of action merges in the judgment. The Defendant's application to strike out the claim is misconceived. The freezing order should not be discharged as the Defendant has not fully disclosed his assets and there is a real risk of dissipation. The Defendant's application to strike out the committal application is also dismissed 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 claim dismissed.
  • Defendant's application to discharge the worldwide freezing order dismissed.