In Itsalat International Company Ltd v Allied TC plc and others – Lawtel 14.05.09 the third and fourth Defendants applied to have a freezing injunction obtained against them by the Claimant set aside. The second Defendant applied to have the claim against him struck out and for a search order and freezing order against him to be discharged. The freezing injunction had been granted without notice on the grounds that there was a real risk of asset dissipation. The third and fourth Defendants submitted that the injunction against them had been granted following a number of material non-disclosures by the Claimant. The second Defendant submitted that the Claimant had no prospect of successfully establishing that he owed a fiduciary duty to the Claimant, nor could the Claimant show that the Defendant had assisted in the fraud as alleged.

The judge in the Chancery Division rejected the application, finding that the allegations of material non-disclosure made by the third and fourth Defendants were manifestly unsustainable. Event if there had been material non-disclosure that raised questions as to the grounds on which the injunction was granted, the Claimant had clearly established that there was a real risk of asset dissipation sufficient to justify a re-grant of the freezing injunction. In relation to the second Defendant, the court ruled that the Claimant had no prospect of being able to successfully bring a claim against the second Defendant and the claim was struck out and the orders against the second Defendant set aside.