Haastrup & Anor v Haastrup & Anor

A freezing injunction continued on an interlocutory basis to preserve assets pending resolution of the underlying dispute carries with it any information obligation forming part of the order. Its continuation is not affected by uncertainty about whether counsel expressly accepted compliance with that obligation. Where preservation of the assets is accepted as appropriate, and no substantive argument is advanced against continuation of the injunction, an application to discharge should be dismissed rather than adjourned. An attempt to separate the information obligation from the continuing injunction is misconceived.

The applicants sought permission to appeal against the dismissal of their application to discharge a freezing injunction. The injunction had been granted without notice and restrained dealings with the proceeds of a property sale. It also required disclosure of information concerning the money and its whereabouts.

The discharge application raised disputes about entitlement to the estate, the status of a marriage and the capacity of one claimant. At the hearing before the Deputy High Court Judge, the injunction was continued pending determination of those issues. The central questions were whether the application should have been adjourned rather than dismissed and whether the information obligation continued.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no arguable ground on which an appeal against the Deputy Judge’s order could succeed.
2. The hearing before the Deputy Judge occurred before the disputes concerning entitlement to the estate, marital status and capacity could be determined. The Deputy Judge was entitled to preserve the money pending resolution of those disputes. It was accepted that the injunction would continue on an interlocutory basis until the underlying disputes were resolved.
3. The Deputy Judge had made it clear that continuation of the injunction included the obligation in clause 6 to provide information about the money, the accounts in which it had been held and what had happened to it. That obligation was a standard feature of a freezing injunction. Whether counsel expressly accepted that the information would be supplied did not alter the legal effect of the order made.
4. The argument that the application to discharge should have been adjourned was rejected. Once preservation of the assets was found to be appropriate, continuation of the injunction followed. The applicants advanced no argument that the injunction itself should not continue. Seeking to separate the information obligation from the continuing injunction was therefore misconceived.
5. The Court accordingly rejected the submissions and refused the renewed application.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused on the renewed application; see [2015] EWCA Civ 1528.
2. High Court, Chancery Division: the Deputy High Court Judge dismissed the application to discharge the freezing injunction by an order sealed on 22 April 2015.
3. High Court, Chancery Division: a freezing injunction had previously been made without notice by Barling J on 2 April 2015.