Astute Capital PLC & Anor v Countrylarge 444 Limited & Ors

A proprietary freezing order may be made under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 25.1(1)(f), and information about relevant assets may be ordered under rule 25.1(1)(g). The information sought must relate sufficiently to assets subject to the order and must not be oppressive or amount to a fishing expedition.

An application is totally without merit where no rational argument supports it. Costs of an interim injunction based on the balance of convenience are ordinarily reserved until trial. Indemnity costs may be ordered where a party unreasonably resists procedural relief or makes a totally meritless application.

This was a consequential judgment following the court’s July 2023 judgment in proceedings concerning claims by Astute Capital PLC and Astute Capital Advisors Limited against Finlaw Property Limited and related defendants.

The court determined the precise terms of an interim proprietary freezing injunction, whether the undertaking in damages required fortification, whether a third strike-out application was totally without merit, liability and basis for costs, requests for further information concerning property-related funds, and an extension of time for re-re-amended particulars of claim.

1. Injunction and undertaking. The agreed interim injunction was ordered, subject to limited amendments concerning invoices and pro forma invoices. A proposed additional allowance for communal garden expenditure and a 24-hour consent requirement were refused. Both claimants were required to give undertakings in damages, but no payment into court or other fortification was ordered. Finlaw was given liberty to apply if it wished to sell the property or dispose of relevant proceeds.
2. Totally without merit. The third strike-out application was marked totally without merit. The applicable question was whether some rational argument could be raised in support of it. None existed: the application relied on an obvious case-number error, sought to set aside an undertaking given by another party, pursued a costs remedy through an inappropriate route, and identified no rational basis for material non-disclosure.
3. Costs. Costs of the interim injunction application were reserved because it was granted on the balance of convenience and the merits remained for trial. The claimants obtained costs on the summary judgment application. Indemnity costs were ordered for the relief and extension, default judgment, first strike-out and third strike-out applications because the defendants’ conduct was unreasonable, opportunistic or totally without merit. Payments on account of £40,000 and £27,750 were ordered.
4. Further information. Rule 25.1(1)(f) and (g) permitted a proprietary freezing order and information about the location of relevant property or assets. The requests could cover refinancing sums, sale proceeds and property income, but had to be confined to information reasonably connected with the charged sums. Requests 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 were ordered, in modified or duplicated form; requests 6, 8, 10 and 11 were refused.
5. Extension. Time for service of the re-re-amended particulars was extended until 21 days after provision of the ordered information. A single amendment process was proportionate and would not materially prejudice the trial timetable.