‘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.’
Family Law Week, 17th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘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) [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 [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
“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
“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.”
The Independent,
Source: www.independent.co.uk
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
“Freezing orders, without notice applications and evidence obtained in breach of confidence – a salutary reminder.”
Sovereign Chambers, 25th June 2013
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
“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.”
Family Law Week, 8th July 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“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.”
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.
“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
“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.”
OUT-LAW.com, 28th February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
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
Supreme Court, 6th February 2013
“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.”
NearlyLegal, 2nd August 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Asset-freezing powers that are exercised under counter-terrorism legislation are ‘an intrusive and humiliating experience’ for a number of British citizens, the government’s independent reviewer of anti-terror laws has warned in a report.”
The Guardian, 15th December 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Nomihold Securities Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [2011] EWCA Civ 1040; [2011] WLR (D) 278
“Where a freezing order bound a party against whom an arbitral award had been made the position was not directly analogous to that of a ‘judgment debtor’ when the question fell to be determined whether the party owing the sum awarded should be permitted to make a payment out to a third party.”
WLR Daily, 1st September 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The determination of a claim for judicial review challenging decisions whereby the claimants were placed, as persons believed to be associated with terrorism, on a list the effect of which was that their assets were frozen and release of any funds was placed in the discretion of the state, would not involve the determination of the claimants’ ‘civil rights’ for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.”
WLR Daily, 13th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“CCC, which has history of British political donations, failed to comply with court orders freezing its assets.”
The Guardian, 2nd February 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024