This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Bank of Scotland Plc v Greville Development Company (Midlands) Ltd (2013)


It was just and convenient in the circumstances to continue a freezing order and permit a claimant to cross-examine the defendant on the disclosure it had given. The claimant had a good and arguable case, and there was the possibility that the defendant's assets would be dissipated if both orders were not made.


The applicant bank (B) applied to continue a freezing order against the respondent development company (G), and for permission to cross-examine it on disclosure given in relation to the whereabouts of certain assets.

B had loaned money to G so that G could buy property. As security, B registered a legal charge over the property. After G fell into arrears, a DS1 form was submitted to the land registry to vacate the charge over the property. B said that had been forged, but G's case was that it had entered into an "off the record" agreement with B to vacate the charge. Following its removal, G sold its leasehold interest in the property. B accused G of dissipating the money and obtained a freezing order against it.

B submitted that under the circumstances both orders sought were just and convenient.


Although the facts were to be determined at trial, the explanation offered by G did not undermine the fact that B had a good and arguable case as it was inherently improbably that a financial lender would just give up a charge. It was also just and convenient to continue the injunction. Although G argued that the order would not be fair because B was using it stop it from meeting its reasonable legal expenses, there was no evidence of that. B had even suggested ways of getting money to the solicitors directly. It could not be said that B's conduct would justify discontinuing the freezing injunction, Thane Investments Ltd v Tomlinson (No.1) [2003] EWCA Civ 1272 applied. (2) Disclosure in the instant case was partial, and that may have been deliberately so. Such a cross-examination would usually only be ordered if assets were likely to be dissipated, and that was the case here. It was therefore just to order that G be cross-examined in respect of the whereabouts of certain assets. It represented the only realistic way that the freezing order would be effective. Although a costly exercise, the scope of the cross-examination could be controlled and confined by the judge hearing it, Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd v Urumov [2012] EWHC 3106 (Comm) applied.

Applications granted

View all cases

06 Mar 2013

Chancery Division
Judge Pelling QC

Jonathan Allcock
Thomas Grant KC