Court again highlights ‘severe consequences’ of deliberately breaching freezing order, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

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

OUT-LAW.com, 19th June 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

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

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

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

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

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

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Improperly obtained freezing order can prove costly, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

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

OUT-LAW.com, 31st August 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

English court upholds freezing order, jails directors for refusal to disclose assets – OUT-LAW.com

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

OUT-LAW.com, 28th June 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court: contempt of court could form basis of ‘unlawful means’ damages action – OUT-LAW.com

‘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

OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

No relief from the Supreme Court – Radcliffe Chambers

‘The Supreme Court has held in Thevarajah v Riordan [2015] UKSC 78 that:
(1) a party who failed to obtain relief from sanctions for non compliance with an order
cannot make a second application for relief without demonstrating a material change
in circumstances; and
(2) belated compliance with an order does not, of itself, constitute a material change
in circumstances.’

Full story

Radcliffe Chambers, 7th January 2016

Source: www.radcliffechambers.com

Supreme Court: no “material change” means no second application for relief from sanctions – Litigation Futures

‘Litigants are not entitled to make a second application for relief from sanctions unless there has been a “material change in circumstances”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 17th December 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Serious Fraud Office v Saleh – WLR Daily

Serious Fraud Office v Saleh [2015] EWHC 2119 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 368

‘Where the court in another jurisdiction made an order for the restoration of shares to their owner in consequence of the abandonment of forfeiture proceedings by the prosecuting authority in that jurisdiction, the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom was not prevented from initiating proceedings against the proceeds of sale of those shares located within the United Kingdom.’

WLR Daily, 21st July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Former Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman has assets frozen by High Court judge – The Independent

Posted July 8th, 2015 in corruption, costs, freezing injunctions, news by sally

‘A former mayor has had hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of assets frozen by a High Court judge after being found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.’

Full story

The Independent, 7th July 2015

Source: www.independent.co.uk

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and another v Pugachev – WLR Daily

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and another v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 139; [2015] WLR (D) 94

‘Under the terms of a freezing order the court had jurisdiction to order a member of a class of beneficiaries under a discretionary trust to make disclosure of the details of the trust and the trust assets.’

WLR Daily, 27th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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