Michael John Harvey, R (on the application of) v Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates' Court
[2024] EWHC 2832 (Admin)
Michael John Harvey v Santander UK PLC
21 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2947 (KB)
High Court
A man's bank account was frozen because the bank suspected money laundering. He sued to get it unfrozen, but the judge said he didn't have enough proof it wasn't money laundering, so the account stayed frozen. The bank won and the man had to pay their legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Claimant's business bank account frozen by Defendant (Santander UK PLC) in November 2022.
- •Freezing followed large sums of money deposited into the account from Dubai and Indonesia.
- •Claimant's explanations for the deposits involved legitimate property transactions, but lacked documentary evidence.
- •Police also issued a freezing order, which later lapsed.
- •Claimant sought an interim mandatory injunction to unfreeze the account.
- •Defendant relied on its General Terms and Conditions to justify the freezing.
Legal Principles
Highly inappropriate to grant a mandatory injunction that would render a bank at risk of committing a criminal offence.
K Ltd v National Westminster Bank PLC [2007] 1 WLR 311 @[12]
A bank is entitled to rely on contractual rights to refuse a transaction if it reasonably suspects breach of conditions.
Becker & Fellowes v Lloyds TSB Bank PLC [2013] EWHC 3000 @[24]
For an interim mandatory injunction, the court must consider the likelihood of claimant success at trial.
NWL Ltd v Woods [1979] 1 WLR 1294 @ 1307A-B
A higher degree of assurance is required for a mandatory injunction compared to a prohibitory injunction.
Shepherd Holmes Ltd v Sandham [1971] 1 Ch 340 @351H-352A
Interlocutory mandatory injunctions should be granted only in clear cases.
Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport [1986] 1 WLR 657 @ 663G-664D
Outcomes
Application for an interim mandatory injunction refused.
Court lacked a high degree of assurance that the Claimant would succeed at trial due to lack of documentary evidence supporting his claims. The balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo. Granting the injunction could expose the Defendant to significant risks.
Costs awarded to the Defendant.
Claimant unsuccessful; costs summarily assessed and reduced to reflect proportionality.
Case re-allocated to follow CPR Part 7 procedures.
The serious issue to be tried was unsuitable for CPR Part 8 procedures.