‘The first Appellant/Claimant (‘Koza Ltd’) was a company incorporated in England and Wales, of which the Second Appellant/Claimant, ‘Mr Ipek’ was sole director. Koza Ltd was incorporated in March 2014 and capitalised with £60 million provided by the Respondent/Defendant (“Koza Altin”), its parent and 100% owner, to undertake mining operations outside Turkey.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 27th June 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘City firm Macfarlanes ‘hampered’ the court by failing to provide a clear breakdown of costs, a judge has ruled in the latest development of a billion-pound battle for control of a global fishing company.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th December 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has awarded the UK arm of natural resources company China Molybdenum Company (CMOC) £7m, in a case in which a worldwide freezing injunction against “persons unknown” was approved for the first time.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th September 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The NCA now have the power to extend the moratorium period on Suspected Activity Reports (SAR) by 31 days, up to a total of 186 days. This is due to the amendment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘the Act’), by the Criminal Finance Act 2017. It is usually clear to an interested party when this is happening, due to delay from the banks in releasing their money. The banks cannot confirm this due to the tipping off provisions.’
Drystone Chambers, July 2018
Source: drystone.com
‘Another high-profile foreign dispute, this time related to a stake in a Russian fishing company valued at more than a billion pounds, has opened in the High Court – though the relevance of England and Wales as a jurisdiction has again been called into question.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th August 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal (CoA) has dismissed an appeal in which the Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK) and its national bank argued that their custodian bank, Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), had acted in breach of contract by freezing their assets in accordance with foreign court orders.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to strike out freezing orders granted on behalf of French bank Société Générale (SocGen), after finding that the bank had taken too long to issue the relevant claim forms.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th May 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Much has been written about Fraser J’s judgment in Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd, with both Tim Sampson and Abdul Jinadu discussing various issues on this blog. What I thought was interesting about the judgment was how it illustrates the tension between adjudication and the principle embodied within it of keeping cash flowing, and how a successful challenge on enforcement may stop it. Ironically, this is often at a time when a party most needs cash to keep flowing.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 24th April 2018
‘Jessica Joel, trainee solicitor at CMS, considers the case of JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov.;
UK Supreme Court Blog, 13th April 2018
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The English High Court has thrown out an application to set aside a without notice freezing injunction made against two defendants to a fraud action, saying the claimants had disclosed sufficient evidence for the case to proceed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘An individual has successfully applied for continuation of a freezing order, after being able to show that there was a real risk that money held in another’s account would be dissipated if the order was not continued.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st September 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th June 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
Littleton Chambers, 16th May 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘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.’
Littleton Chambers, 24th March 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
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
‘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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st August 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th June 2016
Source: www.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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 7th January 2016
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 17th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025