)
The Supreme Court has refused to get involved in a dispute over an asset freezing order ahead of a judgement in the £100M Candy v. Holyoake case.
Three Supreme Court justices — Lords Mance, Clarke and Sumption — declined to hear an appeal concerning what had been described as a “novel” asset freezing order applied for by Mark Holyoake. They said the appeal did not raise an arguable point of law of general importance.
The original order required luxury apartment developers Nick and Christian Candy to notify Holyoake of any asset disposal over £1M (later raised to £5M). The order, granted in the High Court, was overturned by the Court of Appeal — prompting Holyoake to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Judgment on the long-running Candy v. Holyoake case is expected imminently. Timing will be announced on the Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list some time this week.
Hearings in the £100M claim by Holyoake against his former business partners, Nick and Christian Candy, ended in April.
Holyoake claimed loss after Christian Candy’s company, CPC, loaned him £12M to buy central London properties, and alleged coercion. The Candy brothers rejected the allegations as fabrications, and argued in return that Holyoake was an unreliable business partner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)