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 granted a proprietary injunction over trust assets, appointed Ms Lake as a representative party, and refused a freezing injunction.
The High Court granted an interim proprietary injunction over shares or sale proceeds, finding a serious issue over trust, urgency, and no adequate damages remedy.
DBLP Sea Cow Ltd v Steffenson [2025] EWHC 2732 (Ch) (02 October 2025)
The High Court granted a holding proprietary injunction over shares or their sale proceeds in a dispute over whether a 16 May 2025 SPA created a trust.
IAHP Group Holdings Lt, Re [2025] EWHC 2069 (Ch) (04 August 2025)
The High Court granted a without-notice proprietary injunction, worldwide freezing order, and disclosure order in a liquidation misfeasance claim against two former directors.
The court considered jurisdiction, summary judgment and injunction applications concerning ownership of Panamanian bearer-share companies and related asset control.
The High Court granted a proprietary injunction over Seboni profits, refused a freezing order, and allowed targeted information and preservation orders in a shareholder unfair prejudice dispute.
Garofalo v Crisp & Anor (Re Valorem Holdings Ltd) [2025] EWHC 966 (Ch) (16 April 2025)
The High Court granted a proprietary injunction over Seboni brand profits and limited information orders, but refused a freezing order as unnecessary and disproportionate.
A claim for proprietary relief under sections 339 and 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, where there is a serious issue to be tried, is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction even if a present proprietary interest is not established. The judge did not err in law or in the exercise of discretion, and the duties of full and frank disclosure and fair presentation were adequately discharged.
Source excerpt
The Respondents, as directors, breached fiduciary and statutory duties by unlawfully diverting company funds for personal benefit, failed to maintain proper records, and attempted to disguise their conduct. The alleged shareholder loans are not substantiated by contemporaneous evidence and do not justify set-off. There is a real risk of asset dissipation, justifying the grant of a proprietary injunction, worldwide freezing order, and disclosure order, with a capped cross-undertaking in damages.
Source excerpt
Sachs v Snape & Ors [2025] EWHC 1746 (Comm) (04 April 2025)
The High Court granted proprietary and freezing injunctions over alleged misappropriated cryptocurrency and funds, and permitted service out and substituted service.
Explore more
