The test for proprietary injunctions the courts impose a stricter test on defendants wishing to use assets falling within the scope of the injunction to pay legal fees.
[2016] EWCA Civ 1301
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Others ChD 26-Jan-2009
Application to vary a freezing order made on a without notice application.
Held: Lewison J set out the proper approach at para. 6 by setting out the four questions which should be addressed: ‘(1) does the claimant have an arguable proprietary . .
Cited by:
See Also – FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino and Others ComC 1-Nov-2018
consequentials hearing . .
See Also – FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino and Others ComC 28-Mar-2019
Post judgment assessment of damages. . .
See Also – Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd CA 26-Feb-2020
. .
Cited – XX and Others v YY and Others ChD 2-Jul-2021
The first defendant applies for an order that the claimants are not entitled to pursue legal action against his lawyers in respect of funds over which the claimants claim a proprietary interest and paid to the first defendant’s lawyers as legal fees . .
Cited – FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino and Others ComC 11-Jul-2018
Claims for conspiracy to injure . .
See Also – FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino and Others ComC 9-Oct-2018
Proceedings to enforce court judgment . .
See Also – FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino and Others ComC 31-Oct-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.668763
