Dinglis Properties Ltd v Dinglis Management Ltd

[2016] 4 WLR 72

14th April 2016

Chancery Division


Mark resisted an application by the defendants to discharge a freezing injunction.  Held that if the proper inference to be drawn from the pleaded facts alone was that the defendants' breach of duty was dishonest, then that inference was itself capable of providing evidence of a propensity to dissipate; that in that sense the pleaded facts in a claim were capable of doing double duty, in showing both a good arguable case and a propensity to dissipate assets; but that if the pleaded facts were consistent with a breach of duty which might be either innocent or dishonest then, in order to show a propensity to dissipate, the claimants would need to adduce further evidence; that even if the pleaded facts were sufficient to support an inference of dishonesty, the court would still look at any other relevant evidence in order to see whether it rebutted that inference; that the claimants also had to establish that the defendants' assets were the kind of assets which were capable of being dissipated.

David Halpern QC (as deputy judge of ChD)


Instructing solicitor was Howard Kennedy LLP

Associated Members:

© New Square Chambers Ltd