Citation: [2025] EWHC 3209 (TCC)
Gaynor Chambers (instructed by Spencer West LLP) acted for WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd (“WLP”) in resisting the renewal of a freezing injunction obtained by High Tech Construction Ltd (“HTC”) following an adjudication decision awarding HTC £2.1 million for construction works at a London development.
Background
The dispute arose from a construction contract under which HTC carried out substantial groundworks and structural works for a four-storey building comprising 22 flats. Despite completing the works, HTC received only an initial payment of £250,000 from the total contract sum of almost £2.4 million. The owner of WLP (“Dr Essa”) repeatedly promised but failed to make further payments, making a series of excuses. An adjudicator determined that HTC was entitled to the balance of the contract sum as claimed and rejected the jurisdictional challenges and allegations of defects advanced by WLP. HTC subsequently obtained a freezing order to protect its ability to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.
Decision (Constable J)
Judgment for the Claimant.
- Risk of dissipation of assets: The Court identified several factors indicating a real risk of dissipation, including:
- (a) Dr Essa repeatedly promising to pay and defaulting with implausible excuses, raising thin defences after admitting liability and periods of total silence;
- (b) The incorporation of a further company after the dispute arose, Cavendish & Rowe Holding Limited, bearing a name which suggests an association with the site;
- (c) A recent charge on the Development in favour of Cohort Capital Limited during the adjudication proceedings, together with the drawdown of £700,000 for unexplained or inadequately explained purposes; and
- (d) Evidence that Dr Essa had ties with countries and institutions outside the jurisdiction, including banking arrangements in Cyprus.
- Balance of convenience: The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the freezing order. The judge rejected the submission that reputation risk was sufficient to outweigh the need to preserve assets pending enforcement, particularly in light of the real risk of dissipation.
- Full and frank disclosure: The High Court rejected the arguments that the application should not have been made without notice and that HTC had failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure. The risk that further equity in the property could be converted into readily moveable liquid assets justified the without-notice application. While the Court identified a minor inaccuracy concerning country of residence, it held that this was not material and did not justify discharging the freezing order.
