Category Archives: Commercial Litigation

In Windrush Continental SA v Bitumen Invest A/S, the High Court discharged an interim freezing order in somewhat surprising and unusual circumstances.  The decision confirms the procedurally correct way to vary the terms of an interim freezing order (or other injunction) obtained without notice, while also providing a reminder of the need to use clear … Continue reading Varying the terms of an interim injunction made without notice

The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov and others helpfully illustrates the courts’ approach to assessing whether a defendant has suffered loss as a result of an incorrectly granted freezing order, for the purpose of enforcing the claimant’s cross-undertaking in damages. The decision confirms that the court should … Continue reading Cross-undertaking in damages: assessment of loss

A judgment in the claim of Affinity Financial Awareness Ltd and anr v Ferguson and ors tantalisingly suggests that we may finally have a decision on enforceability of post-termination restrictive covenants against self-employed contractors.  The full hearing is listed for November 2016 and, absent pre-trial settlement within the next month, the court’s decision may prove … Continue reading Potential for clarity on enforceability of post-termination restrictions against consultants

In Gerald Metals SA v Timis, Mrs Justice Rose granted an on notice application under CPR 25.1(1)(g) requiring the provision of information about assets that might be the subject of a freezing order.  In doing so she confirmed there was no reason to depart from the two stage test applied in previous case law: Has … Continue reading Court confirms approach to CPR 25.1(1)(g) application for information on assets

In AB Bank Ltd v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC, the Commercial Court set aside a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) made against a bank in the UAE on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to serve the order on the bank out of the jurisdiction because none of the permitted jurisdictional gateways under … Continue reading Commercial Court refuses to permit service of Norwich Pharmacal Order out of the jurisdiction

In Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos and others, the High Court held that a claimant who had obtained an order for the registration of a foreign judgment had no absolute entitlement to protective measures (in the form of a domestic freezing order) under Article 47 of the 2001 Brussels Regulation.  The High … Continue reading No absolute entitlement to domestic freezing order as protective measure when appeal pending against registration of foreign judgment

In Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos and others, the High Court held that a freezing order granted by another EU Member State does not become immediately fully effective and enforceable once a registration order is made by the English court.  It becomes enforceable only if no appeal is brought in respect of … Continue reading Foreign freezing order cannot be enforced within the jurisdiction until any appeal against registration of the order is determined

A short judgment from Mr Justice Henderson on 22 July 2016 in the case of Haederle v Thomas, is a reminder of the importance of “crossing every T” when it comes to the wording of freezing injunctions, not least if one wishes for the injunction to carry a criminal sanction. In this case Mr Haederle … Continue reading Minor but uncorrected error in freezing injunction defeats committal application

In Asia-Pacific Trading Pte Ltd (formerly known as Toepfer International Asia Pte Ltd) v PT Budi Semesta Satria, the High Court held that delay on the part of the applicant could be adequate cause for refusing an anti-suit injunction, even where the respondent acknowledged there was an arguable case that it had breached an arbitration … Continue reading High Court refuses anti-suit injunction based on arbitration clause due to delay

In Rudolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) considered whether an English freezing injunction affecting third parties was contrary to public policy under the 2001 Brussels Regulation (Regulation 44/2001) and therefore unenforceable.  Under Article 34 of the Regulation, a judgment of an EU Member State court (which includes … Continue reading CJEU considers whether freezing injunctions affecting third parties are contrary to public policy