High Court refuses urgent injunctive relief against NCAD

Jonathan Upton has successfully resisted an application for urgent injunctive relief against a no cause of action defendant (“NCAD”). In Sebba v Heathgate Block Management Ltd [2026], the director of a freehold company applied for an urgent injunction against the company’s manager, requiring it, amongst other things, to obey his instructions, cease works and deliver up property belonging to the company. The company was named as a defendant to the action but not a respondent to the application for urgent injunctive relief.

In dismissing the application, Leech J accepted Jonathan’s submissions that the only person who can seek relief for an injury done to a company, where the company has a cause of action, is the company itself (known as the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461). In the instance case, the causes of action were: (1) breach of contract; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. Both causes of action were vested in the company. The director’s claim was not a derivative action. Although it is now well settled that the grant of injunctive relief is not always conditional on the existence of a cause of action (see Broad Idea [2023] AC 389 and Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] A.C. 983), none of the recognised exceptions applied in the instant case. The injunction was therefore refused and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.

Related Barristers

Jonathan Upton KC is recognised for his work in high-value commercial disputes, real estate litigation and asset recovery. His expertise across these interconnected fields makes him “the perfect package for complex and hard-fought” litigation.

His work is both domestic and international, with many cases involving fraud and trusts. Jonathan is regularly instructed in complex, high-value and urgent applications, including freezing injunctions, proprietary injunctions and asset disclosure orders. Commentators note that “he has an unwavering ability to get to the commercial crux of a matter extremely quickly” and that “Jonathan is both technically brilliant and a creative advocate.”

Recent instructions include acting in a substantial Commercial Court group action involving over 200 claimants and allegations of fraud, conspiracy and non est factum; advising on the recovery of debts in the context of the Russian sanctions and OFSI licensing regime; and challenging a Letter of Request issued by the Supreme Court of New York to the Royal Court of Jersey in connection with the Williams F1 Racing Team v Schwarz litigation in the US.

Jonathan is noted for being “incredibly approachable and helpful. You can just pick up the phone and talk to him” and “an absolute pleasure to work with.”