BCS Corporate Acceptances v Terry

BCS Corporate Acceptances v Terry

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 is misconceived. The freezing order should not be discharged as the Defendant has not provided full disclosure and there is evidence of undisclosed assets. 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.

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 Freezing Order, Committal, Security for Costs)
Outcome
Defendant’s applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out After Judgment, Freezing Orders, Security for Costs, Committal for Contempt, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Fraud Injunctions Strike Out After Judgment Freezing Orders Security for Costs Committal for Contempt Abuse of Process

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 4 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 Freezing Order, Committal, Security for Costs)

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 disclosure
  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 is misconceived. The freezing order should not be discharged as the Defendant has not provided full disclosure and there is evidence of undisclosed assets. 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 applications to strike out the claim, discharge the freezing order, and strike out the committal application are dismissed.
  • If the strike-out application had proceeded, Defendant would have been ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of £275,000.