The duty of full and frank disclosure in worldwide freezing orders and service out applications (Tugushev v Orlov (No. 2)) – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The most recent episode in litigation between two Russian Oligarch involving an application to set aside a World-wide Freezing Order (“WFO”) and permission for service out of jurisdiction (“Service Out Order”) for failures in the duty of full and frank disclosure (“the Full and Frank Duty”).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 9th August 2019


High Court allows cross examination of Defendant on a worldwide freezing order concerning asset disclosure – No. 5 Chambers

Posted August 29th, 2019 in cross-examination, disclosure, freezing injunctions, news by sally

‘On 27 June 2019 in the English High Court in Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & 5 Others v Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus & Others [2019] EWHC 1693 (Comm) 2019 WL 02746548; the High Court re-examined the principles on which a Defendant can be cross-examined on their assets where there had been a disclosure order pursuant to a worldwide freezing order (‘WFO’).’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 1st August 2019


Koza Ltd & Anor v Akcil & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 891 – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 3rd, 2019 in company directors, expenses, freezing injunctions, news, undertakings by sally

‘The first Appellant/Claimant (‘Koza Ltd’) was a company incorporated in England and Wales, of which the Second Appellant/Claimant, ‘Mr Ipek’ was sole director. Koza Ltd was incorporated in March 2014 and capitalised with £60 million provided by the Respondent/Defendant (“Koza Altin”), its parent and 100% owner, to undertake mining operations outside Turkey.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 27th June 2019


Costs ‘disproportionately high’ in Russian oligarch battle – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted December 18th, 2018 in costs, freezing injunctions, jurisdiction, law firms, news, proportionality by sally

‘City firm Macfarlanes ‘hampered’ the court by failing to provide a clear breakdown of costs, a judge has ruled in the latest development of a billion-pound battle for control of a global fishing company.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 17th December 2018


£7m win for Chinese company in first ‘persons unknown’ freezing order – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted September 27th, 2018 in computer crime, costs, damages, freezing injunctions, news by tracey

‘The High Court has awarded the UK arm of natural resources company China Molybdenum Company (CMOC) £7m, in a case in which a worldwide freezing injunction against “persons unknown” was approved for the first time.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 26th September 2018


Extensions of Moratorium Periods and How it Can Be Challenged – Drystone Chambers

Posted August 9th, 2018 in freezing injunctions, news, proceeds of crime, time limits by sally

‘The NCA now have the power to extend the moratorium period on Suspected Activity Reports (SAR) by 31 days, up to a total of 186 days. This is due to the amendment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘the Act’), by the Criminal Finance Act 2017. It is usually clear to an interested party when this is happening, due to delay from the banks in releasing their money. The banks cannot confirm this due to the tipping off provisions.’

Full Story

Drystone Chambers, July 2018


High Court hosts new mega-money Russian dispute – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted August 7th, 2018 in choice of forum, freezing injunctions, news, Russia by sally

‘Another high-profile foreign dispute, this time related to a stake in a Russian fishing company valued at more than a billion pounds, has opened in the High Court – though the relevance of England and Wales as a jurisdiction has again been called into question.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 7th August 2018


The CoA finds that a bank was contractually entitled to comply with foreign court orders –

Posted June 27th, 2018 in banking, contracts, foreign jurisdictions, freezing injunctions, news by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal (CoA) has dismissed an appeal in which the Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK) and its national bank argued that their custodian bank, Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), had acted in breach of contract by freezing their assets in accordance with foreign court orders.’

Full Story, 26th June 2018


Delayed service sufficient to strike out freezing orders –

Posted May 17th, 2018 in appeals, banking, delay, documents, freezing injunctions, news, striking out by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to strike out freezing orders granted on behalf of French bank Société Générale (SocGen), after finding that the bank had taken too long to issue the relevant claim forms.’

Full Story, 16th May 2018


Cash flow tensions in adjudication enforcement – Practical Law: Construction Blog

‘Much has been written about Fraser J’s judgment in Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd, with both Tim Sampson and Abdul Jinadu discussing various issues on this blog. What I thought was interesting about the judgment was how it illustrates the tension between adjudication and the principle embodied within it of keeping cash flowing, and how a successful challenge on enforcement may stop it. Ironically, this is often at a time when a party most needs cash to keep flowing.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 24th April 2018


Case Comment: JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2018] UKSC 19 – UK Supreme Court Blog

‘Jessica Joel, trainee solicitor at CMS, considers the case of JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov.;

Full Story

UK Supreme Court Blog, 13th April 2018


Court underlines importance of full disclosure in freezing injunction cases –

Posted November 28th, 2017 in disclosure, fraud, freezing injunctions, news, setting aside by sally

‘The English High Court has thrown out an application to set aside a without notice freezing injunction made against two defendants to a fraud action, saying the claimants had disclosed sufficient evidence for the case to proceed.’

Full Story, 27th November 2017


Court continues freezing order after suspected email fraud –

Posted September 4th, 2017 in electronic mail, fraud, freezing injunctions, news by sally

‘An individual has successfully applied for continuation of a freezing order, after being able to show that there was a real risk that money held in another’s account would be dissipated if the order was not continued.’

Full Story, 1st September 2017


Court again highlights ‘severe consequences’ of deliberately breaching freezing order, says expert –

Posted June 19th, 2017 in freezing injunctions, injunctions, mental health, news, sentencing by sally

‘The High Court has again highlighted the “severe consequences” of deliberately breaching a freezing order, imposing a 12-month prison sentence on a woman who failed to comply with two deadlines and later lied to the court, an expert has said.’

Full Story, 19th June 2017


Charlene Ashiru on Protecting Your Judgment: A New Tort of Asset-Stripping? – Littleton Chambers

‘Whilst it might be tempting as a Defendant company to dissipate assets to avoid Judgment debts, it is ill-advised and is unlikely to provide an easy escape.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 16th May 2017


Notification Injunctions to Preserve Assets: an overview by Marc Delehanty – Littleton Chambers

Posted April 6th, 2017 in appeals, freezing injunctions, injunctions, news, notification by sally

‘A notification injunction is a variant of a conventional freezing injunction. Broadly speaking, it provides that the respondent cannot deal with or dispose of his assets without first providing advance notice of the proposed dealings to the applicant.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 24th March 2017


Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus and others – WLR Daily

Posted October 31st, 2016 in civil procedure rules, contribution, fraud, freezing injunctions, law reports by sally

Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1036

‘The claimants were a group of companies. The first and second defendants had been, respectively, the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of the first and second claimants. The third defendant had been the finance director of the second claimant. The claimants issued proceedings alleging, inter alia, that the defendants had dishonestly caused the claimant companies to enter into transactions in which large sums of money were paid to entities owned or controlled by the defendants and which had caused the claimants to incur substantial financial losses. All three defendants served defences denying fraud and dishonesty or that they had personally benefitted from the transactions. Subsequently, the first defendant reached a settlement of the claim against him with the claimants. The second and third defendants applied for permission pursuant to CPR r 20.6(2)(b) to bring a contribution claim against the first defendant, no such claim having been filed and served when they served their defence. The second defendant further sought a worldwide freezing order against the first defendant. The judge refused the applications, holding that (i) the claim for contribution was bound to fail because the draft contribution notice sought to be relied upon by the second and third defendants did not advance a case of actual fraud or wrongdoing by the first defendant and, following the their settlement agreement with the first defendant, no such case was being advanced by the claimants which the second and third defendants could adopt as an alternative to their primary position that they had acted honestly; and (ii) the court could only grant a freezing injunction once the applicant had an accrued cause of action, which, in the context of a claim for contribution, was once the contribution notice had been filed and served under CPR r 20.6(2).’

WLR Daily, 26th October 2016


Improperly obtained freezing order can prove costly, says expert –

Posted August 31st, 2016 in damages, disclosure, freezing injunctions, injunctions, news by sally

‘A company that obtained a freezing injunction which prevented a businessman from investing his assets has been told it will have to pay “tens of millions of dollars” in damages by the High Court in London.’

Full story, 31st August 2016


English court upholds freezing order, jails directors for refusal to disclose assets –

Posted June 29th, 2016 in company directors, disclosure, freezing injunctions, news, sentencing by sally

‘The current and former directors of Hong Kong company Nu Tek have been sentenced to 18 and 12 months’ imprisonment for breaching a worldwide freezing order.’

Full story, 28th June 2016


High Court: contempt of court could form basis of ‘unlawful means’ damages action –

‘Failing to comply with a freezing order in contempt of court could be considered “unlawful means” as part of an action for damages for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story, 23rd February 2016