Category Archives: Fraud

In PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov and others, Mr Justice Picken granted an application for the discharge of a worldwide freezing order previously obtained by the claimant, PJSC Tatneft, against the four defendants.  The application to discharge was brought on the basis that Tatneft’s claim did not amount to a “good arguable case” and/or that there … Continue reading High Court confirms meaning of “good arguable case” test for freezing orders and “risk of dissipation” in context of fraud claims

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

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 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

In Holyoake and another v Candy and others, the High Court has granted the first stand-alone “notification injunction” (or notification order), which can be viewed as a less invasive alternative to a freezing injunction.  A notification injunction requires a defendant to give notice to a claimant before disposing of or dealing with particular assets where … Continue reading High Court grants first stand-alone notification injunction

In Kazakhstan Kagazy plc & others v Zhunus and others, Mr Justice Leggatt considered the second defendant’s (“D2”) application for a freezing injunction against the first defendant (“D1”) in aid of a contribution claim.  On the facts, the judge refused permission to serve the contribution claim on D1, and consequently refused the injunction application in … Continue reading When can the court grant a freezing injunction in aid of a contribution claim?