Stella Eboh v James Baird

A High Court injunction application is misconceived where it seeks the same relief already refused by a county court in extant proceedings between the parties. Where an application to set aside the county court order has been issued, the appropriate course is to pursue that application in the county court. The High Court should not grant an urgent without notice injunction where there is no proper basis for duplicating or bypassing the existing proceedings.

The claimant sought, without notice, an injunction preventing the defendant from selling a property. She alleged that the property had been fraudulently sold to the defendant by her former husband.

The dispute had already been raised in financial remedy proceedings and in proceedings in the Central London County Court. The county court had dismissed the claimant’s claim, including the injunction application, on 7 December 2023. The claimant subsequently issued an application dated 7 February 2024 seeking to set aside that order. She then issued the present High Court application on 14 February 2024.

The issue was whether the High Court should grant urgent without notice relief while the county court proceedings and set-aside application remained extant.

1. Application dismissed. The High Court had no basis to grant an urgent without notice injunction preventing the sale of the property.
2. The claimant’s application sought the same injunction that had been refused by the Central London County Court when dismissing her claim on 7 December 2023. The High Court application was therefore misconceived.
3. The claimant’s application to set aside the county court order, issued on 7 February 2024, provided the appropriate procedural route. The claim and the proposed relief remained before the county court in long-standing proceedings in which the defendant had been notified.
4. It remained for the county court to determine the procedural and substantive aspects of the claimant’s case. The High Court should not be used to secure the same relief through a new without notice application while that route remained available.
5. The financial remedy proceedings did not contain a finding of fraud. The relevant order merely recorded the claimant’s claim and concluded that the family court had no jurisdiction to make the payment order sought.