Supreme Court agrees to hear case on breach of unless order – Litigation Futures

‘The Supreme Court is to consider the consequences of failing to comply with an unless order for a second time, it has emerged.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 28th November 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Court lifts £1.6m freezing order against City solicitor – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted October 10th, 2014 in fiduciary duty, fraud, freezing injunctions, news, solicitors by sally

‘The High Court has lifted a £1.6m freezing order against a solicitor after declaring that it was based ‘on the flimsiest foundations’.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 9th October 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Greenwich Inc Ltd (in administration) v Dowling and others; Greenwich Inc Trading Ltd v Dowling and others – WLR Daily

Greenwich Inc Ltd (in administration) v Dowling and others; Greenwich Inc Trading Ltd v Dowling and others: [2014] EWHC 2451 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 334

‘If a consent order affected orders made by a judge it was advisable at first instance that any applications in respect of such an order should be made to a judge rather than a master. The court retained a general discretion whether before or after the parties had seen a draft judgment to continue to deliver a judgment where it was appropriate so to do. Even if the parties had effectively put an end to the dispute between themselves, that in itself could not stop the court from raising matters which concerned it.’

WLR Daily, 15th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Applications Without Notice: A Practitioner’s Guide – Family Law Week

Posted July 22nd, 2014 in case management, children, family courts, freezing injunctions, news by sally

‘Rodney Noon, solicitor, provides a detailed review of the law and practice of – and the court’s attitude to – without notice applications in family proceedings.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 17th July 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off

Applications Without Notice: A Practitioner’s Guide – Family Law Week

Posted July 18th, 2014 in children, family courts, freezing injunctions, news by tracey

‘Rodney Noon, solicitor, provides a detailed review of the law and practice of – and the court’s attitude to – without notice applications in family proceedings.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 17th July 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off

Abbey Forwarding Ltd (in liquidation) and another v Hone and others (No 3) – WLR Daily

Posted May 29th, 2014 in appeals, damages, freezing injunctions, injunctions, law reports by michael

Abbey Forwarding Ltd (in liquidation) and another v Hone and others (No 3) [2014] EWCA Civ 711;  [2014] WLR (D)  236

‘When determining questions of compensation for loss arising as a result of a freezing order and the undertaking in damages therein, the correct approach was that the remote consequences of obtaining an injunction were not to be taken into account in assessing damages but that logical and sensible adjustments might well be required simply because the court was not awarding damages for breach of contract but was compensating for loss caused by the injunction which was wrongly granted.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.org.uk

Comments Off

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) – WLR Daily

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) [2014] EWCA Civ 602;  [2014] WLR (D)  221

‘Where non-parties resident outside the jurisdiction applied for removal of an asset from the scope of freezing and associated orders, the court had jurisdiction to order the trial of an issue as to whether they owned the asset as claimed, but not as to whether they had colluded in breach of the orders, without steps being taken to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction in reliance on paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 6B.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and others – WLR Daily

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and others [2014] EWCA Civ 636; [2014] WLR (D) 216

‘The assets of a company whose shares were entirely owned by a defendant to a standard form freezing order were not assets of the defendant, for the purposes of the order. However, since such a freezing order restrained the defendant from diminishing the value of any of his assets, which included his shareholding in such a company, it would restrain him from procuring the company to make a disposition of its assets likely to result in such a diminution.’

WLR Daily, 14th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Commercial Court upholds worldwide freezing order in support of English arbitration against foreign nonarbitrating parties – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted October 30th, 2013 in arbitration, Commercial Court, freezing injunctions, jurisdiction, news by sally

“In PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Sergey Maksimov and others [2013] EWHC 3203 (Comm), Blair J dismissed an application to discharge a worldwide freezing order made against non-arbitrating parties in support of an LCIA arbitration in long-running commercial court proceedings. Charles Samek QC lists three reasons why the case is of importance.”

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, October 2013

Source: www.11sb.com

Comments Off

Soca wields new powers to freeze global assets of super-rich foreigners – The Independent

“The embattled Serious Organised Crime Agency heads into fresh controversy on Tuesday as it emerges it has won sweeping new powers allowing it to freeze assets of super-rich foreigners suspected of fraud.”

Full story

The Independent,

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Comments Off

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 10) – WLR Daily

Posted July 29th, 2013 in banking, disclosure, fraud, freezing injunctions, loans, news by sally

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 10) [2013] EWCA Civ 928; [2013] WLR (D) 305

“In determining the meaning of the term ‘assets’ in a freezing order, account should be taken, as part of the background and context of such orders, of their purpose, in the way that anyone construing any document should take account of the background of it. Where the words used clearly and unequivocally led to the conclusion that the term ‘asset’ included that which could not be the subject of execution, effect must be given to the words. Where they did not, the purpose of such orders would be a significant factor in determining the meaning of the term ‘asset’ in that context and a pointer against including the particular right under consideration.”

WLR Daily, 25th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Important judgment on freezing orders & ex parte orders commented on by David Partington – Sovereign Chambers

Posted July 19th, 2013 in divorce, freezing injunctions, news by sally

“Freezing orders, without notice applications and evidence obtained in breach of confidence – a salutary reminder.”

Full story

Sovereign Chambers, 25th June 2013

Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Finance and Divorce Update – Family Law Week

“Jessica Craigs, solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in June.”

Full story

Family Law Week, 8th July 2013

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Comments Off

Wife in £20m divorce rifled husband’s safe while he played golf – Daily Telegraph

Posted June 26th, 2013 in divorce, financial provision, freezing injunctions, news by sally

“A wife persuaded a court to freeze £20 million of her husband’s assets using papers she raided from his safe while he was out playing golf, a High Court judge has disclosed.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 25th June 2013

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

The Daily Telegraph have recently introduced a limited paywall. Users will be permitted to view 20 Daily Telegraph articles per month for free, after which they will need to pay a subscription fee to access content.

Comments Off

Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening) – WLR Daily

Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening) [2013] UKSC 11; [2013] WLR (D) 90

“There was no general rule that the Financial Services Authority acting pursuant to a public duty should be required to give to the court a cross-undertaking in damages in favour of third parties affected by the obtaining of a freezing injunction under section 380(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and/or section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”

WLR Daily, 27th February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regulators need not guarantee third party losses when freezing assets, Supreme Court confirms – OUT-LAW.com

“Bodies acting under a ‘public law duty’ do not need to cover losses incurred by third parties when they ‘freeze’ the assets of a company under investigation, the Supreme Court has confirmed.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th February 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off

The Financial Services Authority (a company limited by guarantee) (Respondent) v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Respondents) and Barclays Bank plc (Appellant) – Supreme Court

The Financial Services Authority (a company limited by guarantee) (Respondent) v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Respondents) and Barclays Bank plc (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 11 | UKSC 2011/0244 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 27th February 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others – WLR Daily

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others [2013] UKSC 5; [2013] WLR (D) 41

“Where a claimant alleged that it had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations of a third party to enter a contract with a company, and sought to make a contractual claim against the third party as being jointly and severally liable with the company, it was not appropriate for the court to pierce the corporate veil, even if it could do so on appropriate facts, since to do so would render the third party liable as if he had been a co-contracting party with the company when he had not, and when none of the contracting parties, including the claimant, had intended that he should be.”

WLR Daily, 6th February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 5 | UKSC 2012/0167 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 6th February 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Follow the money… – NearlyLegal

Posted August 6th, 2012 in costs, damages, freezing injunctions, landlord & tenant, news, sentencing by sally

“The difficulties in many cases against private landlords, not least unlawful eviction cases, do not end with trial and judgment. Realising damages and costs awards can be a fraught,complex and time consuming matter. This case is a prime example. It is a lengthy tale, but sadly not untypical in its twists and turns. It is also a useful case on quantum for unlawful eviction.”

Full story

NearlyLegal, 2nd August 2012

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off