In the case of Hassan Cahil v Limton [2026] EWHC 714(KB), Mr Justice Moody dealt with an unusual application to discharge a freezing injunction in a multimillion-pound brain injury claim.
The claimant alleged he had suffered a traumatic brain injury in an accident in November 2016 and was claiming around £12m. The defendant’s case was always that the claimant was exaggerating the effect of his injuries, and they obtained surveillance evidence to support their stance. The action was settled in January 2022 by the acceptance of a £2.5m offer which was paid to the financial deputy. One of the claimant’s quantum witnesses, who had given important evidence regarding the claimant’s disability, subsequently approached the defendant’s insurer and provided a new witness statement which implied that the settlement had potentially been procured by fraud.
In March 2023 the defendant applied to set aside the settlement and issued separate proceedings seeking the same relief. When it transpired that the financial deputy to whom the damages had been paid had been discharged by an order of the Court of Protection, the defendant was concerned about the security of the damages that had been paid to the claimant and made an unusual application for a freezing injunction.
Various applications and hearings followed, and the original claimant solicitor withdrew from the case because of a conflict of interest.
Ultimately the case came before Mr Justice Moody on an application by the claimant to discharge the freezing injunction based on allegations made via his new solicitors regarding conduct of the defendant’s insurers, solicitors and counsel. The claimant made wide ranging allegations that representations had been made to the court which had been misleading and were in breach of a duty of full and frank disclosure.
In rejecting the application, the judge dealt with each allegation in detail. He found that the allegations made were either wrong on the facts, had addressed matters which had been correctly drawn to the attention of the court already by the defendant, or related to evidential matters which were not required to be brought to the court’s attention in the context of establishing a good arguable case. The claimant had overstated the depth and breadth of the duty of full and frank disclosure.
The judge found that the allegations of the claimant had changed and altered over time to such a degree that it was difficult for the defendant to be clear as to the allegations it was facing. The lack of clarity and precision and the manner in which the allegations were drafted did not comply with previous orders of the court.
The skeleton argument of claimant counsel in describing the actions of the insurers, solicitors and counsel for the defendant had used words such as “deliberate, outrageous, egregious, misconceived, contumelious, false and deplorable”. It was found that the claimant’s approach had not been justified and it was inappropriate to advance thin allegations with such “overheated language”. The court emphasised the need to retain a sense of proportion in this type of application.
Standing back, the court found that the overarching interests of justice required the freezing injunction to remain in place and any minor failings by the defendant did not justify discharge.
In the circumstances the case would proceed in relation to the application to set aside judgment and the defendant had the benefit of the continuing freezing injunction to protect the security of the damages that had been paid to the discharged deputy.
1. This case illustrates that concluded or settled cases can be reopened when there are allegations that judgment has been obtained in fraudulent circumstances.
2. It is important for the parties to consider whether damages paid over remain secure. Where there is a financial deputy and Court of Protection involvement this may be achieved by undertakings to prevent damages being paid to the claimant. However, in circumstances where such undertakings cannot be obtained it may be necessary to pursue an application for a freezing injunction.
3. The court will decide in accordance with its equitable or statutory jurisdiction to grant injunctions where it is just and convenient provided that:
i. the defendant has already been granted, or has a good arguable case for being granted, a judgment or order;
ii. the claimant holds assets against which such a judgment could be enforced; and
iii. there is a real risk that, unless the injunction is granted, the claimant will deal with such assets (or take steps which make them less valuable) other than in the ordinary course of business, with the result that the availability or value of the assets is impaired and the judgment is left unsatisfied.
In this case that test was satisfied on the facts.
4. Where there are allegations of professional misconduct, they must be treated seriously and there is a need for them to be particularised by the party making them with clarity and precision. In dealing with such applications the court deprecates the use of inappropriate language and encourages a sense of proportionality.
The service you deliver is integral to the success of your business. With the right technology, we can help you to heighten your customer experience, improve underwriting performance, and streamline processes.
