Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Applicants have established an arguable case that the worldwide freezing order caused loss, including business disruption and reputational damage. No special circumstances exist to deny an inquiry. The court orders an inquiry as to damages pursuant to the cross-undertaking.
Source excerpt
Citadel Securities (Europe) Ltd & Anor v Lancia & Anor [2026] EWHC 880 (Comm) (13 March 2026)
The Commercial Court kept a cross-undertaking in damages in a freezing order and refused to compel the claimants to tell Crypto.com to lift an asset block.
Bugsby failed to establish a good arguable case that the claimed loss will be suffered in consequence of the injunctions; the alleged loss is speculative and not supported by solid evidence. Even if the issue of the funders’ ability to pay was reached, Bugsby did not show a good arguable case that Omni or Therium would not meet their undertakings.
Source excerpt
Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Cayman Invt. Ltd v Bugsby Property LLC & Anor [2023] EWHC 2755 (Comm) (03 November 2023)
The Commercial Court dismissed Bugsby Property LLC’s application to fortify cross-undertakings in damages, finding the claimed loss from the injunctions was speculative.
Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Ors v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2023] EWCA Civ 73 (01 February 2023)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Warner-Lambert’s appeal against refusal to amend its defence in pregabalin litigation, while allowing amendments to appeal documents.
Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Ors v Warner-Lambert Company LLC & Anor [2021] EWHC 2182 (Ch) (30 July 2021)
Preliminary issues on damages and counterfactuals in pregabalin patent litigation. The court rejected assumed knowledge of invalidity and required counterfactuals tied to the specific wrongful order or threat.
Consequential judgment after a major commercial fraud trial, addressing freezing orders, collateral use of disclosure, living expenses, and enforcement directions.
National Bank Trust v Yurov [2020] EWHC 757 (Comm) (27 February 2020)
Consequential judgment after trial in a fraud and enforcement dispute. The court addressed post-judgment freezing relief, collateral use of disclosure, expenses, and several order wording issues.
Peak Hotels and Resorts Ltd v Tarek Investments Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 1997 (Ch) (17 July 2015)
The High Court refused PHRL’s request to withdraw fortified funds and also refused Sherway’s interim payment application under CPR 25.7.
The Court of Appeal upheld disclosure about discretionary trusts under a freezing order, upheld an unlimited cross-undertaking, but set aside fortification.
Explore more
