All posts by Charlie Tomlinson

Tomorrow, a panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court will hear the appeal in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov concerning whether choses in action, such as a right to borrow money in accordance with a loan facility agreement, are “assets” within the meaning of the standard form freezing order, and whether they are subject … Continue reading Supreme Court hearing this week on meaning of “assets” in standard form freezing order

On 16 and 17 March 2015, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2013] EWCA Civ 928. The case forms part of a long-running, complex and quite exceptional litigation involving Mukhtar Ablyazov, which Christopher J, in an earlier judgment, described as “extraordinary litigation … Continue reading Supreme Court to consider whether choses in action are “assets” within meaning of standard form freezing order

Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in popstar Rihanna’s passing off claim against Arcadia Group (the owners of Topshop), the court has also dismissed Arcadia’s appeal on costs. In deciding that Arcadia should pay Rihanna’s costs – estimated at £1 million – the Court of Appeal rejected the appellants’ arguments that the level of costs … Continue reading Court of Appeal dismisses Arcadia’s appeal on costs in Rhianna and Topshop case

On 17 January 2015, the Court of Appeal heard an application to vacate an expedited date to hear an appeal of a freezing injunction. The applicants argued that no expedition was needed because the case was an ordinary freezing injunction and therefore an ordinary interlocutory appeal. They said the expedition was neither necessary nor appropriate. … Continue reading Court of Appeal dismisses application to vacate expedited date to hear appeal of a freezing injunction

Todaysure Matthews v Marketing Ways Services demonstrates how the courts will balance the need to uphold a consent order agreed between the parties, with enforcing disclosure obligations owed to the court. In delivering his judgment and upholding the consent order, Teare J held that while the disclosure breach by the claimant was serious, the continuation … Continue reading High Court refuses defendant’s application to set aside consent order despite claimants’ failure to give full and frank disclosure when obtaining an earlier injunction

Golden Endurance Shipping SA v RMA Watanya SA gives clarity on the important jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions. Burton J in his judgment makes clear that no separate jurisdictional gateway is required, providing the injunction is ancillary to claims where English jurisdiction is established. The case concerned damage to a cargo of wheat bran pellets … Continue reading A separate jurisdictional gateway is not required to grant an anti-suit injunction, provided the injunction is ancillary to a substantive action that attracts English jurisdiction