Have expenses under a freezing injunction become a further means to dissipate? Natalie Todd & Richard Swan investigate
- National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors: further clarifying the position on the living, legal, and ordinary business expense exceptions for recipients of freezing injunctions in the post judgment context.
The recent case of National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors [2021] EWHC 164 (Comm) has further clarified the position on the living, legal, and ordinary business expense exceptions for recipients of freezing injunctions in the post judgment context. There have been a few recent judgments on what is considered permitted expenditure and we set out below our analysis.
Summary
The specific wording in the freezing order will set out the permitted expenditure. A respondent is likely to be able to maintain his pre-injunction standard of living—providing he manages to gain the sympathy of the court and providing there is a credible basis on which to present his ‘investment’ companies as genuine, they are
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
