Posted on: June 27th, 2016
Claimants looking to ensure a defendant does not take steps to dissipate his assets prior to judgment are assisted by the introduction of the new ‘notification injunction’ granted by the court in Holyoake v Candy  EWHC 970 (ch).
The notification injunction acts as a freezing order in that it requires a defendant to notify the claimant before taking any steps to dispose of or deal with any assets covered by the order. No freeze is actually placed on the assets and as a result the level of security required to support the notification injunction is likely to be less. It is for the claimant to decide on receipt of the notification of intended disposal whether it is necessary to apply for a freezing order over those assets to prevent their dissipation.
The test for obtaining a notification order is the same as that required for a freezing order, namely the claimant must establish a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation. However, the notification injunction is not considered as intrusive as the freezing order and the court has therefore indicated that the threshold to meet the test is lower. The notification injunction is likely to be a useful tool when dissipation of assets is envisaged but cannot necessarily be proven.