Balbinder Singh Battu v Reflect Canal House Limited & Ors

A without-notice freezing-order applicant must give full and accurate disclosure, present the case fairly and make proper enquiries. Materiality depends on whether the omission materially misled the judge; disputes about the merits or facts ordinarily belong at trial, not on a discharge application.

For continuation of a domestic freezing order, the claimant must establish a good arguable case, solid evidence of a real risk that a future judgment will be defeated by unjustifiable dissipation, and that continuation is just and convenient. Proportionality, spending allowances, preservation of assets, the cross-undertaking in damages and delay are relevant. Even where non-disclosure is proved, the court retains a sparingly exercised power to continue or renew relief in the interests of justice.

The claimant sought continuation to trial of a domestic freezing order made in June 2026. The first to fifth respondents sought its discharge for alleged material non-disclosure. The underlying claim concerned an investment in a residential property development and included claims in debt, contract, trust, fiduciary duty, tort and fraud on creditors.

The court had to determine whether the alleged omissions justified discharge and, if not, whether there was a good arguable case, a real risk of unjustifiable dissipation, and sufficient justification for continuation of the injunction.

Disposition. The application to discharge the freezing order for material non-disclosure was dismissed. The order was continued in the terms previously ordered until trial or further order.

1. The court applied the principles summarised in Tugushev v Orlov [2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm). A without-notice applicant must give full and accurate disclosure of material facts, present the case fairly and even-handedly, and make proper enquiries, including investigation of likely defences. Materiality concerns whether the omission materially misled the judge.
2. A discharge application should not become a mini-trial. Challenges to the claimant’s evidence, alleged economic duress, the alleged termination of the trust, and disputed documents or communications were matters for trial. The court also held that an alleged oral termination of the trust would be legally ineffective by reason of section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Errors in the figures and the omission of a nearby contractual clause were not material in the circumstances. The three-week delay in issuing the discharge application was relevant but not fatal.
3. For continuation of a domestic freezing order, the claimant had to show a good arguable case, solid evidence of a real risk that a future judgment would not be met because of unjustifiable dissipation, and that continuation was just and convenient. The respondents accepted the first requirement. The court found the second satisfied by evidence including transfers to accounts controlled by the respondents despite the claimant’s request, reliance on a false community infrastructure levy email, denial of agreements personally signed, closure of the only account visible to the claimant, and an undisclosed payment to a respondent.
4. Continuation was just and convenient. The £1.5 million cap was proportionate to the substantial debt claim, interest and trial costs. Spending allowances, liberty to apply, preservation of assets and the claimant’s unlimited cross-undertaking protected the respondents’ position. The injunction was therefore continued until trial or further order.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that HHJ Jarman KC made the original freezing order on 5 June 2026 and HHJ Hodge KC continued it on 29 June 2026. The present court dismissed the discharge application and continued the order until trial or further order.