Victory in court: Glenville Walker’s litigation team triumphs once again!

Glenville Walker acted for a property development company who were subjected to a freezing injunction over the company’s assets.

The main purpose of a freezing injunction is to prevent a party from disposing and squandering their assets. As part of this application, Glenville Walker successfully persuaded the Court that the applicant had failed to provide the Court with full and frank disclosure when they initially obtained the injunction.

Our experienced litigation team successfully defended the application and discharged the freezing order, whilst also obtaining an indemnity costs order against the applicant company who applied for the freezing injunction.  

We are delighted to highlight another success for our long-standing client, who is prolific in the world of property development and are proud that our litigation team were at the heart of the win.

Managing Director of the property development company, commented, ‘I cannot thank Anna and Ruby enough for their exceptional work in defending our company against the freezing injunction and for successfully obtaining a cost order in our favour. Their approach to robustly defending this injunction on our behalf was ultimately the key for the Court agreeing that the injunction should be discharged. We couldn’t have asked for a better team to represent us.’

Anna Salisbury, Partner - Litigation and Dispute Resolution at Glenville Walker commented, ‘This was a brilliant outcome for our client, but it really demonstrates the importance that any application for a freezing order must be made with full and frank disclosure to the Court and that it should be accompanied by a proper and sufficient cross-undertaking of damages, which was ultimately the reason why the freezing order was discharged by the Court.’

Ruby Briscoe, Solicitor - Litigation and Dispute Resolution at Glenville Walker commented, ‘It is fantastic to see all the time and effort we have put into this matter resulted in a positive outcome for our client. This matter highlights the necessity to properly prepare for injunction applications and if you fail to do this, the court is prepared to make adverse cost orders as a sanction.’

‍