Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MR A PRATT (instructed by Preiskel & Co. LLP) appeared on behalf of th e Claimant/Respondent.
THE SECOND TO SIXTH DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS did not appear and were not represented.
                    This is an unusual application issued on 3 November 2021 by Mr Haigh, the first defendant, at the time intending it to be an application, at least as stated in the application notice, on his own behalf and on behalf of the second to sixth defendants, for an order to the effect that the freezing order granted by Flaux J (as he then was) in December 2014 be discharged against all defendants.
�Until the disposal of the Claim or further order of the court, the Defendant must not remove from England and Wales or in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of his assets which are in England and Wales up to the value of US $5 million (�the amount�).�
                For those reasons, it may be clumsily expressed, but so that the parties know immediately where they stand, the application in substance succeeds.� It succeeds on the basis that, strictly speaking, the order of Flaux J expired on its own terms as of 4 July 2018 and it is high time that the court so declared by order so that these parties - and it may be any third parties made aware of the freezing order - can know the position.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.