Mold Investments Limited (Respondent) v Holloway (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0181

Parties

Appellant(s)

Matthew Holloway

Respondent(s)

Mold Investments Ltd

Issue

In what circumstances should a court conduct a hearing of an application to set aside a freezing order prior to the substantive trial? Was the Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with the trial judge’s decision to order a 5-day hearing of Appellant’s application to set aside a freezing order?

Facts

The First Respondent, Mold Investments Ltd (“Mold”) owns and operates a quarry in North Wales for the purposes of waste management at the relevant time. The Appellant, Mr Holloway, and Mr Jacques were directors of Mold until they were removed in 2021 and replaced with Mr Sean O’Grady. Mold issued a claim on 11 August 2023 alleging that between May 2020 and December 2021, Mr Holloway and Mr Jacques unlawfully caused or permitted illegal dumping at the quarry and in so doing acted in breach of their duties as Mold’s directors. On 9 August 2023, Mold made a without notice application for a freezing order against Mr Holloway and Mr Jacques, relying on four screenshots of WhatsApp messages said to have been sent on 26 July 2023 between Mr Jeremy Hazlehurst and Mr Holloway and Mr Jacques. In the texts, Mr Hazelhurst tips off Mr Holloway and Mr Jacques as to the likelihood of a substantial claim being made against them and both of them independently say that they will take steps to dissipate their assets. Both Mr Holloway and Mr Jacques deny having sent or received these WhatsApp messages. Mellor J granted the freezing order (“the First Freezing Order”) and also made an order requiring Mr Hazelhurst to hand over to an independent solicitor for imaging the mobile phone containing the WhatsApp messages from which the screenshots were taken. On 5 January 2024, Mold made a without notice application to extend the scope of the First Freezing Order, relying on (i) a series of threatening messages alleged to have been sent to Mr O’Grady from two burner phones between 16 October 2023 and 13 December 2023 sent from locations close to the homes of Mr Holloway and Mr Jacques and (ii) an incident on Boxing Day 2023 in which Mr O’Grady alleged to have been intimidated by an unknown individual. Richard Smith J made the order sought (“the Second Freezing Order”). By an application notice dated 6 December 2024, Mr Holloway applied to set aside the Freezing Orders on the basis that the entirety of the evidence of dissipation had been forged or concocted by Mr O’Grady, Mr Hazlehurst and/or unknown accomplices (“the Set Aside Application”). Mr Holloway sought a hearing of the Set-Aside Application at which there would be cross-examination of witnesses of fact and (insofar as it remained in dispute) technical expert evidence in relation to the WhatsApp messages. Following a directions hearing on 4 and 5 March 2025, Richard Smith J ordered that the Set-Aside Application should proceed to a final hearing and gave directions for that hearing to be before him over 5 days commencing on 30 June 2025, with 1 day pre-reading, with the makers of affidavits and witness statements attending, if required, for cross-examination. Costs of the directions hearing on 4 and 5 March 2025 were to be costs in the Set-Aside Application (“the Directions Order”). Mold appealed the Directions Order to the Court of Appeal. Mr Hazelhurst was granted permission to intervene. By a majority, Nugee LJ dissenting, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Mr Holloway now appeals to the Supreme Court.