‘A former mayor has had hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of assets frozen by a High Court judge after being found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.’
The Independent, 7th July 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and another v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 139; [2015] WLR (D) 94
‘Under the terms of a freezing order the court had jurisdiction to order a member of a class of beneficiaries under a discretionary trust to make disclosure of the details of the trust and the trust assets.’
WLR Daily, 27th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court is to consider the consequences of failing to comply with an unless order for a second time, it has emerged.’
Litigation Futures, 28th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has lifted a £1.6m freezing order against a solicitor after declaring that it was based ‘on the flimsiest foundations’.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 9th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2024