- Freezing orders, discharge and variance (VB Football Assets—Blackpool Football Club (Properties))
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Following judgment against the respondents and a subsequent freezing order to safeguard payment under the judgment to the petitioner (VB Football Assets), the respondents applied to discharge or vary the freezing the order. The High Court found that the respondents had retained assets which could have been realised and had not complied with their obligation to pay the judgment debt. For these and other related reasons, the High Court inferred a real risk that the respondents would dissipate the assets. Further, the High Court held that the petitioner was not adequately protected from dissipation without the freezing order. Accordingly, the application to discharge or vary the freezing order was dismissed. Written by Joel Wallace, barrister at St Philips Chambers.
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