Background
Balbinder Singh Battu invested in a Southampton residential development undertaken through Reflect Canal House Limited. He alleged that the parties agreed he would become a director and 50% shareholder, that earlier advances of approximately £600,000 would be recognized as a loan to the company, and that he supplied substantial additional loan and equity funding. He claimed, however, that he was never appointed as a director or registered as a shareholder and was denied adequate visibility over the project’s finances.
After the completed property was sold to Southampton City Council for £3.9 million, substantial sums were transferred from the development company to related entities and individuals. Battu brought claims based on 13 alleged causes of action, including debt, breach of contract, breach of trust and fiduciary duty, deceit, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, and transactions defrauding creditors. A domestic freezing order was made without notice on 5 June 2026 and later continued. Battu applied to maintain it until trial, while the first five respondents sought its discharge for alleged material non-disclosure.
The Court’s Holding
HHJ Paul Matthews dismissed the respondents’ discharge application. Most of their complaints were disputes about the underlying facts or merits that belonged at trial, rather than material omissions from the without-notice application. Although some figures presented to the original judge were erroneous, the court found that the discrepancies were either immaterial or understated the relevant transfers and did not justify discharging the order.
The court continued the freezing injunction until trial or further order. The respondents accepted that Battu had a good arguable case on at least one claim, and the court found solid evidence of a real risk of unjustifiable dissipation. That evidence included transfers intended to protect funds from potential account freezes, use of a false email concerning a community infrastructure levy, denial of knowledge of signed agreements, closure of the bank account visible to Battu, and an undisclosed £125,000 payment to the fourth respondent. A £1.5 million cap, spending allowances, liberty to apply, and Battu’s unlimited cross-undertaking made continuation proportionate, just, and convenient.
Key Takeaways
- A freezing order will not be discharged merely because respondents contest the applicant’s factual account; disputed merits ordinarily belong at trial unless an alleged omission can be established clearly and summarily.
- Admissions that assets were moved to avoid potential account freezes can provide strong evidence of a real risk that a judgment will be frustrated by unjustifiable dissipation.
- The court may continue a freezing injunction where there is a good arguable case, solid evidence of dissipation risk, and safeguards making the restraint proportionate and compensable.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes genuine material non-disclosure from attempts to turn a discharge application into an early trial of disputed facts. Numerical errors will not necessarily defeat without-notice relief when they did not materially mislead the judge or affect the basis for the order.
For parties seeking or resisting freezing relief, the judgment also illustrates the evidential importance of asset movements, explanations for those movements, concealment of financial information, and conduct suggesting a willingness to frustrate legal process.