CA-2025-000783 - [2025] EWCA Civ 986

The issue on this appeal is whether an application made by the First Defendant, Matthew Holloway, to set aside a freezing order and its extension obtained by the Claimant (“Mold”) on the ground that they were obtained by means of fabricated evidence should be heard at a stand-alone hearing estimated at (at least) five days (plus one day’s judicial pre-reading) with oral evidence from 12 witnesses of fact and four expert witnesses, as Mr Holloway contends, or together with the trial of Mold’s substantive claim, as Mold contends. Richard Smith J directed a stand-alone hearing of the application for the reasons given in his judgment dated 18 March 2025 [2025] EWHC 961 (Ch). At the conclusion of the oral argument on Mold’s appeal, the Court announced that the appeal would be allowed. This judgment sets out my reasons for reaching that conclusion.