J v H  EWFC 133
Published: 09/11/2022 09:00
Peel J. H’s application for a freezing injunction. Reference to Mostyn J’s guidance from UL v BK and the importance of compliance with the pre-requisites set out in that case.
H’s initial application was essentially without notice as short, informal notice of just one hour was given.
H’s solicitors had requested the W provide an undertaking not to dispose of any assets currently held in her name, encompassing W’s entire worldly wealth. W had removed the sum of $18,000 from a joint account, the W eventually explained the purpose of the withdrawal and that the funds would be returned forthwith. W, in correspondence, stated that she did not intend to take any action to deal with or dispose of her assets other than for personal and business purposes. The H nonetheless made his application.
Peel J considers the relatively small amount of money removed in the context (H stating W had $15m, W stating that she had £5m) and that it had been returned. Peel J notes that applications must have evidential justification and that ‘mere suspicion, or anxiety’ of unjustified dealing with assets is not sufficient.
W agrees a series of recitals and H’s application is dismissed.
Peel J notes that applications for freezing injunctions should be supported by affidavit evidence and there should be provision for a party to meet their costs of living if the application is granted.
H ordered to pay the W’s costs – not to be enforced until conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings.