Evidence of breach of a prior undertaking restricting dealings with property, combined with failure to respond to inquiries about intentions regarding the property, is sufficient to establish the danger of dissipation required for a freezing order. On appeal, the 'good arguable case' requirement for a freezing order requires giving weight to whether the applicant was successful at trial, and the court should not be drawn into a dress rehearsal of the appeal. Where a cross-appeal raises issues intertwined with an existing appeal, the dictates of justice may favour granting an extension of time even where the delay is considerable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 58 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 58 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.