U – Undertakings
19/4/23
HUNT (PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATOR OF BLACK CAPITAL) v UBHI [2023] EWCA Civ 417
A judge had been wrong to continue a freezing order in circumstances where the applicant, the provisional liquidator of an insolvent partnership, had only given a cross-undertaking in damages limited to the net realisable value of the unpledged assets of the partnership.
15/5/20
STANDING v POWER [2020] EWHC 1173 (Ch)
Reviews principles to be applied in considering whether to order fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages supporting the grant of an interim injunction [35]. The court must make “an intelligent estimate of the likely amount of the loss”, the applicant must show a sufficient level of risk to require fortification (which is synonymous with showing a good arguable case to that effect) and only loss caused by the grant of the injunction is relevant. On the facts, the test had not been satisfied.
31/1/14
MALHOTRA v MALHOTRA [2014] EWHC 113 (Comm)
Inquiry as to damages ordered on discharge of injunction. Damages were not irrecoverable on the cross-undertaking as being reflective of losses of a company.
24/1/14
ASTRAZENECA AB v KRKA, d.d. NOVO MESTO [2014] EWHC 84 (Pat)
Considers assessment of damages on cross-undertaking when injunction withdrawn by consent.
27/2/13
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY v SINALOA GOLD PLC [2013] UKSC 11, [2013] Bus LR 302
The FSA is not required to give a cross-undertaking in damages when applying for a freezing injunction under s 380(3) FSMA 2000 or s 37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981.
7/2/13
EMAILGEN SYSTEMS CORP v EXCLAIMER LTD [2013] EWHC 167 (Comm)
An undertaking given to dispose of an application for a freezing order can only be relaxed or modified of there is good cause, normally involving a change of circumstances making continuation of the undertaking unnecessary or oppressive.