D – Duty of disclosure
23/2/24
DERMA MED LTD v ALLY [2024] EWCA Civ 175
Explains principles requiring full and frank disclosure on injunction applications [29]. Here the injunction should not have been discharged because the failures of disclosure were not deliberate and were relatively insubstantial. The judge below should have considered whether some measure short of setting aside the injunction could be used to mark the failure.
11/6/20
PURBRICK v CRUZ [2020] EWHC 1465 (QB)
Considers principles to be applied on an application to discharge a freezing injunction for material non-disclosure [56], and in assessing whether the claimant had a good arguable use that the defendant was a party to a contract [83].
22/5/20
LES AMBASSADEURS CLUB LTD v ALBLUEWI [2020] EWHC 1313 (QB)
Considers relevant principles in considering real risk of dissipation [30] and the duty of full and frank disclosure [66]. There had been material non-disclosures sufficient to discharge a worldwide freezing order and to refuse to re-grant an order.
10/6/19
THE LIBYAN INVESTMENT AUTHORITY v JP MORGAN MARKETS LTD [2019] EWHC 1452
A conscious decision not to give the court certain information provided grounds on which to discharge an injunction [110] & [119].
16/8/18
FUNDO SOBERANO DE ANGOLA v DOS SANTOS [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm)
Summarises principles of non-disclosure in connection with freezing orders [50]. The ultimate touchstone is whether the presentation of the application is fair in all material respects. The court should be signposted to relevant documentary evidence [52].
28/3/18
BANCA TURCO ROMANA SA v CORTUK [2018] EWHC 662 (Comm)
Considers the need to be “fair and even-handed” in presenting evidence on applications for freezing orders [45].
25/3/15
YXB v TNO [2015] EWHC 826 (QB)
Interim non-disclosure orders restraining publication of information discharged for material non-disclosure.
18/3/15
ALLIANCE BANK JSC v ZHUNUS [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm)
Freezing order discharged for material non-disclosure. Principles summarised [66].
23/2/15
BOREH v REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI [2015] EWHC 769 (Comm)
Freezing injunctions were discharged on grounds that the applicant had deliberately misled the court. Proprietary injunctions were allowed to remain in place.
ALLIANCE BANK JSC v ZHUNUS [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm)
Interim injunction discharged for material non-disclosure. Principles summarised [66].
2/4/14
KAZAKHSTAN KAGAZY PLC v MAKSAT ASKARULY ARIP [2014] EWCA Civ 381
Applications challenging freezing injunctions should not turn into mini trials. The court considered the application of the test whether the claimant has a good arguable case, whether there had been material non-disclosure and whether the claim was for reflective loss.
24/6/13
UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam)
Reviews principles applicable to the grant of freezing orders, including the need to provide solid evidence of a risk of dissipation in the sense of an unjustified dealing with assets. Considers when applications may be made without notice, and the need for cross-undertakings in damages. Explains that documents unlawfully obtained by copying without permission must not be read by a solicitor but should be returned to the owner. By failing to disclose the fact that documents had been unlawfully obtained, the applicant had breached the duty of candour required of applicants for freezing orders.
22/2/13
ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS (GENERAL) LTD v VALLE DE UCO RESORT & SPA SA [2013] EWHC 333 (QB)
The court dismissed an application to discharge a worldwide freezing injunction against a borrower and its director shareholders. The company was in default of a loan agreement provided by the claimant for a property development abroad, and the claimant had a good arguable case that it has been induced to enter into the loan agreement as a result of fraudulent misrepresentations contained in a business plan as to planning matters and security which was to be provided. Without the security there was a real risk of dissipation. Failure by the claimant to disclose that the security was only expected after the loan agreement was signed was not sufficient to set aside the order.
1/6/12
CEF HOLDINGS LTD v MUNDEY [2012] EWHC 1524 (QB)
Considers duty of disclosure and authorities on court’s discretion to set aside interim orders for non-disclosure.