John E Griggs & Sons Limited v High Firs Penthouses Limited

A post-judgment freezing order remains an exceptional discretionary remedy. The applicant must establish a good arguable case, an interest in assets, a real risk that the judgment will remain unsatisfied because of unjustified dissipation, and that relief is just and convenient.

An unsatisfied judgment makes the risk requirement easier to satisfy, but does not remove it. A bona fide sale of an asset for full value is not unjustified dissipation merely because the judgment debtor intends to use the proceeds for purposes other than paying the judgment. The court must distinguish the decision to grant a freezing order from the terms of any order, including whether to permit ordinary-course dealings.

The claimant obtained judgment in the Central London County Court for approximately £140,276 following enforcement of an adjudication award arising from a construction contract. The defendant failed to pay and stated that it intended to set off the judgment debt against a larger cross-claim.

The claimant sought, without notice, a freezing order up to £175,000, principally restraining the defendant from selling or granting a leasehold interest in a penthouse forming part of its development. The central issues were whether there was a real risk of unjustified dissipation and whether relief was just and convenient, particularly given the claimant’s delay and outstanding charging-order application.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant had an unanswerable claim and established that the defendant owned a relevant leasehold interest. Those matters were not decisive.
2. The requirements for a freezing order remained a good arguable case, an interest in assets, a real objectively judged risk that a future judgment would not be met because of unjustified dissipation, and that relief was just and convenient. The risk had to be supported by solid evidence and assessed cumulatively.
3. The post-judgment context did not remove the need to prove unjustified dissipation. A post-judgment order may protect execution during the period before enforcement takes effect, but its purpose remains prevention of evasion of justice rather than provision of security or preferential treatment.
4. The court distinguished the grant of relief from the terms of the order. The question whether an ordinary-course or Angel Bell exception should be included arises only after the court is satisfied that a freezing order should be granted. The appropriateness of such an exception is fact-specific.
5. There was no evidence that the proposed sale of penthouse 3 would be below market value, other than at arm’s length, or undertaken to defeat the claimant’s claim. The court therefore assumed that it was an open bona fide sale for value. The stated intention not to pay the judgment, while a powerful factor, did not establish a real risk that the sale or its proceeds would be unjustifiably dissipated.
6. It was neither just nor convenient to restrain the sale. Such relief could cause the defendant to lose a sale, and the claimant had had ample time to seek the less draconian and more focused remedy of a charging order.
7. The claimant was directed under CPR r.23.9 to serve the application and related materials by 4pm on 16 September 2023.

The judgment records that the adjudication-enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Central London County Court. Judgment was entered by consent on 6 June 2023. The present application for a freezing order was determined at first instance by the High Court Technology and Construction Court.