High Tech Construction Limited v WLP Trading and Marketing Limited

A freezing order may be continued where the claimant shows a good arguable case, a real risk that enforcement will be frustrated by unjustified dissipation of assets, and that the order is just and convenient. The risk must be established by solid evidence and assessed cumulatively in the circumstances of the case. Dishonesty alone is insufficient, but conduct relevant to dissipation may be powerful evidence. Non-compliance with an information requirement under a freezing order may itself support an inference of risk. Personal service of an injunction order is required before the order becomes enforceable against the recipient. A freezing order should permit legitimate business activities, including completing or letting a development.

High Tech Construction Limited obtained an adjudicator’s decision requiring WLP Trading and Marketing Limited to pay £2,142,623.35 in connection with construction works at a development site. A Deputy High Court Judge made a without-notice freezing order to preserve WLP’s assets pending enforcement.

WLP opposed continuation of the order. It challenged the without-notice procedure, alleged failures of full and frank disclosure, denied a real risk of dissipation, and relied on the effects of the order and the claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages. The principal issues were whether the order had been properly served, whether WLP had complied with its information obligations, whether there was a real risk of dissipation, and whether continuation was just and convenient.

1. Service. Following MBR Acres Ltd v Maher [2023] QB 186, an injunction order must be personally served unless the court permits alternative service or dispenses with personal service. Service under CPR 6.9 was insufficient. Dr Essa became obliged to comply when personal service was effected on 14 November 2025, although his prior knowledge of the order remained relevant to the substance of his compliance.
2. Compliance. The information supplied about WLP’s assets, bank accounts, charges and the recent Cohort Capital borrowing was inadequate, vague and contradictory. The unexplained disappearance or diversion of the recent loan drawdown, together with the absence of supporting documents, provided a strong inference that funds had been used for purposes unrelated to WLP or completion of the property. WLP had not complied frankly or completely with the order.
3. Risk of dissipation. The court applied the established test stated in Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 959, drawing on Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Morimoto [2019] EWCA Civ 2203 and Fundo Soberano de Angola v dos Santos [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm). The relevant matters included persistent promises to pay followed by default, an apparently weak defence, a new company potentially connected with the property, a recent charge and unexplained borrowing, international banking links, and non-compliance with the freezing order. The matters had to be assessed cumulatively. Speculation about an immediate sale to an arm’s-length purchaser was not sufficient, and the new company’s name alone fell far short of solid evidence.
4. Balance and disclosure. Legitimate business use, including completing or letting the development, should be permitted by the order. Reputational harm and the limited cash underpinning of the cross-undertaking did not outweigh the need to preserve the order. The only material criticism of the without-notice presentation was the over-simplified description of Dr Essa’s residence as China. That isolated error was not material enough to justify discharge or non-renewal, applying the principles summarised in Tugushev v Orlov [2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm) and endorsed in Mex Group.
5. The freezing order was renewed. WLP’s opposition was dismissed. The parties were directed to agree, or revert to the court about, wording permitting legitimate activity concerning completion and letting of the development.

First-instance decision. The judgment itself states that the freezing order had previously been made by a Deputy High Court Judge on 7 November 2025.