Ciro Citterio Menswear plc v Thakrar

Interim relief may be granted pending an appeal where the appeal raises unresolved questions about ownership of property and a respondent is outside the jurisdiction. The court may require relevant sale proceeds to be paid into court and restrain their disposal, charging or diminution in value until the appeal is determined or further order. A cross-undertaking in damages provides the usual protection for the respondent. The court may consider the likely availability of funds to meet that undertaking. Costs may be reserved, with liberty to apply if circumstances materially change.

The first appellant, a company in administration, and two other appellants appealed against an order made by Mr Anthony Mann QC on 27 February 2002. The appeal concerned ownership of 39 Farquhar Road. The company claimed that company funds had contributed to the purchase and that its interest took priority over the second respondent’s declared 22 per cent beneficial interest. The second respondent was living in Canada. The application sought preservation of the proceeds of sale pending determination of the appeal, so that the ownership issues could be resolved before funds were paid out of the jurisdiction.

The application for interim relief was granted. The Court of Appeal considered it appropriate to preserve the sale proceeds pending determination of the appeal, because the appeal raised issues about the ownership and priority of interests in 39 Farquhar Road and the second respondent was living outside the jurisdiction.

1. The second respondent was ordered to instruct her solicitors to pay into court, without deduction, the part of the sale proceeds paid to them pursuant to the order of His Honour Judge Boggis QC dated 27 June 2001. The money was to remain in court until determination of the appeal or further order, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing in advance.
2. The second respondent was restrained from disposing of, dealing with, charging or diminishing the value of those proceeds, except in compliance with the order, until determination of the appeal or further order.
3. The second respondent was protected by a cross-undertaking in damages in the usual form. The appellants accepted that any liability under the undertaking would be treated as costs of the administration, and the available financial information showed a substantial surplus to meet that liability.
4. Costs of the application were reserved to the hearing of the appeal. The second respondent remained entitled to apply to discharge the order if there were a material change in circumstances.

The court also directed the appellants to supplement their skeleton argument within 14 days to address the case against the second respondent and permitted them to address any other issue within the permission to appeal. The merits of the ownership dispute were not determined.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 30 April 2002, Lady Justice Arden granted interim relief in an appeal brought against the order of Mr Anthony Mann QC dated 27 February 2002.
2. Chancery Division, Companies Court: Mr Anthony Mann QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, made the order appealed against. The judgment also recorded an earlier declaration by His Honour Judge Boggis QC dated 27 June 2001 that the second respondent held a 22 per cent beneficial interest in 39 Farquhar Road.