Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Summary judgement refused where sufficient doubt is raised regarding variation of the terms of a settlement agreement
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses an application by an animal feed supplier for both a an order for summary judgement and a mareva injunction against a pig farmer in respect of sums owing on foot of a settlement agreement, on the grounds that: (1) the farmer raised sufficient doubt as regards a variation of the settlement agreement between them for sums owing; and (2) the balance of convenience is better served by an undertaking by the farmer for the sums in question to be held by his solicitor.
Summary Judgement – plaintiff sought sums arising from a settlement agreement of prior proceedings and supply of animal feed – whether a fair or reasonable probability of having a real or bona fide defence, or whether what the defendant said is credible – evidence of credible defence on grounds variation of settlement agreement was demonstrated – summary judgement refused practice and procedure – mareva injunction – whether evidence and risk of dissipation of assets – defendant solicitor had not given undertaking not to dissipate proceeds of sale – Court refused mareva injunction – balance of convenience was better served by undertaking by the farmer for the sums in question to be held by his solicitor.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
