Hamza Lakhany v Danyaal Hasan

A freezing injunction sought on short notice attracts the same duty of full and frank disclosure as a without-notice application. The applicant must fairly present material facts, possible difficulties and likely defences; the burden remains on the applicant to establish a real risk of dissipation by solid evidence. Suspicion, departure from the jurisdiction and dealings with assets outside the defendant’s control are insufficient. Delay may indicate that the applicant did not genuinely perceive an immediate risk, although it is not conclusive. Where material non-disclosure affects the court’s decision, the injunction should be discharged.

The claimant obtained a worldwide freezing injunction against the defendant on 2 July 2025. The application had been adjourned from 27 June, but the defendant received fewer than the required three clear days’ notice and could not attend. He later applied to discharge the order.

The challenge concerned inadequate notice, the absence of a return date and hearing note, the breadth of the order, and alleged failures of full and frank disclosure. The court examined whether the claimant had established a real risk that a judgment would go unsatisfied through dissipation of assets.

1. The injunction was discharged. The hearing on 2 July 2025 did not provide the defendant with the three clear days required by CPR r.23.7(1)(b), calculated under CPR 2.8. Because the notice was inadequate, the claimant remained subject to the duty of full and frank disclosure applicable to without-notice applications.
2. The duty required a fair and even-handed presentation, including disclosure of material facts, likely difficulties and matters which reasonable enquiries would have revealed. The claimant failed to disclose that the defendant had moved to Pakistan months earlier, that the property relied upon was owned by Old Park Ridings Limited, that it was controlled by LPA receivers, and that the defendant could not dissipate it. The claimant also failed to disclose the significant delay before applying.
3. An absent respondent is entitled to know the basis on which an injunction was granted. In a short-notice case, the legal representatives should prepare and serve a note of the hearing, together with the application, supporting evidence and order. Although CPR 25.9(3) did not directly govern the order because notice had technically been given, a return date was required in the circumstances.
4. The claimant had to establish a real risk that the defendant would dissipate assets other than in the ordinary course of business. The order could not be used merely to secure the claim or obtain priority over other creditors. The evidence relied upon did not withstand scrutiny: the property was outside the defendant’s control, his relocation was transparent, and the delay was unexplained.
5. The order was materially wider than the judge’s apparent intended relief and was obtained through a misleading presentation. The claimant’s costs submissions were to be dealt with separately.