Refusal to release defendant from undertakings given to stay freezing order (Emailgen v Exclaimer)

Table of contents

• Practical implications
• Court details
• Facts
• What is the effect of undertakings given in lieu of continuing interim injunctive relief?
• How is the agreement embodying the undertaking to be interpreted?
• What are the differences between agreeing an adjournment or a stay in this context?

Article summary

The defendant to a without notice freezing order had offered an undertaking and the claimant’s application to continue the freezing order was stayed by consent. Subsequently the defendant sought a release from its undertaking on the grounds that the freezing order should never have been granted. Teare J refused. The consent order, properly construed, provided that the undertaking was given until trial and the application to continue had been stayed. The effect was to extinguish the defendant’s entitlement later to seek release from the undertaking on the basis of challenge to the freezing order. That left the defendant only able to seek a release if it could show ‘good cause’ which, on the facts, it could not.