- Court's power to order a 'notification injunction' (Holyoake and another v Candy and Others)
- Practical implications
- What did the court decide?
- Does the court have the power to grant a notification injunction?
- If so, does the applicant need to show a serious issue to be tried or a good arguable case?
- What does a good arguable case mean?
- Was there a risk of dissipation?
- Balance of convenience
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Nugee J has considered the court’s power to grant an injunction requiring the defendants to notify the claimants before disposing or dealing with their assets, also known as a 'notification injunction'. He held that in order to persuade the court to grant such an injunction, the applicant needs to show a good arguable case, a risk of dissipation, and that grant of the injunction is just and convenient. He also looked in detail at the question of risk of dissipation, particularly where assets are held through offshore structures (in jurisdictions which do not require detailed financial reporting) with extensive use of nominees and fiduciary agents which enable the beneficial ownership of assets to be switched easily and without visibility. This decision is of importance to practitioners as an alternative to seeking a freezing injunction where there is a concern that the respondent might deal with their assets so as to frustrate enforcement of any judgment.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial