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
The High Court set aside a default judgment against Mr Ma, holding the application was prompt, he had an arguable defence, and the wider circumstances did not outweigh that.
The Commercial Court granted Nexedge permission to enforce a cross-undertaking in damages after a freezing injunction was discharged as wrongly obtained.
The High Court granted a proprietary injunction over trust assets, appointed Ms Lake as a representative party, and refused a freezing injunction.
Bunina v Nasibov [2026] EWHC 774 (Ch) (16 March 2026)
The High Court continued a domestic freezing injunction where the claimant showed a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and effective alternative service.
Bunina v Nasibov [2026] EWHC 605 (Ch) (06 March 2026)
The High Court allowed alternative service of a freezing injunction by Telegram message after failed personal service attempts and evidence the handle had previously reached the respondent.
Newport & Anor v Jayne [2026] EWCC 23 (04 March 2026)
The County Court granted a freezing injunction preserving two properties, finding a real risk the defendant could dissipate assets before charging order applications were resolved.
The High Court continued a freezing injunction over a disputed $9.4 million transfer, finding a good arguable case of fraud and breach of contract and a real risk of dissipation.
Global Asset Portfolio Ltd v Fazriki Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 458 (Comm) (30 January 2026)
The Commercial Court continued a freezing injunction over $9.4 million, finding a good arguable case of fraud and breach of contract and a real risk of dissipation.
The claimant has a good arguable case for breach of the personal guarantee agreement, there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant, service was validly effected via Telegram and other addresses, and it is just and convenient to continue the domestic freezing injunction until trial or further order.
Source excerpt
The claimant has established a good arguable case for proprietary and Mareva-type freezing injunctions, with a real risk of asset dissipation and acknowledged liability by the first respondent. Delay does not bar relief, and service out of jurisdiction and substituted service are appropriate. The cross-undertaking in damages need not be fortified by a guarantee.
Source excerpt
Explore more
