Stuart Charles Daburn v Persons Unknown & Ors

At a return hearing for a worldwide freezing order, the court may continue the order to trial where proper notice has been given, the respondents have not engaged with the process, and the evidence remains materially unchanged. The relevant threshold remains whether there is a good arguable case on the merits, a realistic risk of dissipation, and whether continuation is fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances. Where those conditions were previously established and no material contrary matter is raised, the court may continue the order without rehearing the evidence in full.

The claimant sought continuation to trial of worldwide freezing orders previously granted by Mr Stuart Ritchie KC on 21 June 2024. The relevant defendants did not appear or take part in the hearing. The court considered whether appropriate notice of the return date had been given, whether a formal application notice was required, and whether the evidential basis for the freezing orders had materially changed.

1. The return hearing proceeded. The claimant’s solicitors had notified the relevant defendants of the hearing and supplied sealed orders and amended particulars of claim. Although there was no formal application notice, the court accepted that none was required because the hearing had been directed by the earlier order. The respondents retained the ability to apply to vary or set aside the orders.
2. The threshold conditions for worldwide freezing order relief remained satisfied. Those conditions were a good arguable case on the merits, a realistic risk of dissipation, and a conclusion that the relief was fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances. The evidence and circumstances had not changed since the original order, and nothing had been raised to suggest that it was wrongly granted or required further reconsideration.
3. The freezing orders were continued until trial. Costs were ordered to be in the case, since an interlocutory freezing order principally preserves the position pending determination of the substantive dispute and does not ordinarily identify a meaningful winner.
4. Previously served evidence did not need to be served again. Any additional material relied on by the claimant, including a further witness statement confirming information provided on instructions, was to be served. The hearing transcript and approved judgment were also to be served when available.

The judgment describes an earlier order made on 21 June 2024 by Mr Stuart Ritchie KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court. The present hearing was the return date directed by that order; it was not an appeal.