Bay Mining Consultants Ltd v Patel & Ors

An interim injunction will not be granted where the claimant has failed to establish a viable cause of action, comply with service requirements, or provide evidence supporting a meaningful cross-undertaking in damages. An assignment of an equitable interest under a trust must comply with Law of Property Act 1925, section 53(1)(c), including written signature by the assignor. A seriously defective application may be certified as totally without merit. The court may adjourn consideration of strike-out, transfer and civil restraint issues to give the claimant an opportunity to respond.

The claimant sought an interim injunction requiring disclosure from the first and third defendants and restraining the first defendant from disposing of assets. The claim relied on an alleged email assignment of an equitable interest under a trust from MSL Services Limited and included claims concerning trust money and loans. The defendants challenged service, the claimant’s standing, and the absence of evidence supporting the cross-undertaking in damages. The court also considered whether the claim should be struck out, transferred to the Chancery Division, or followed by a civil restraint order.

1. Application dismissed. The application for injunctive relief against the first and third defendants was hopeless and was certified as totally without merit.
2. Service by email on 26 April 2021 was ineffective. The claimant had not shown that the defendants received the required notice, and the application contained no request or evidence supporting an abridgement of time. The claimant’s account of service was misleading and failed to provide the court with a full and accurate picture.
3. The alleged assignment could not support the claim against the first and third defendants. Under section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925, a disposition of an interest under a trust required writing signed by the assignor. The email was not signed in writing by MSL Services Limited and was therefore incapable of disposing of the relevant trust interest.
4. Even if the assignment analysis were wrong, the claimant had produced no evidence concerning its financial position to demonstrate that the cross-undertaking in damages was meaningful. The court would not grant the relief sought without such evidence.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay the first and third defendants’ costs, summarily assessed at £14,508 on the indemnity basis, payable by 4 pm on 14 May 2021.
6. Strike-out was not determined immediately. The matter was adjourned to 14 May 2021 so that the claimant could show cause, seek amendment, or make other submissions. Consideration of transfer under CPR Part 30 and any civil restraint order under CPR Part 23.12(b) was also adjourned.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.