An application for Mareva relief was granted under s.25 where proceedings were pending in the US against Lebanese defendants arising out of futures transactions with respect of assets in England. On the application to discharge the order, the lower court held that, in view of the risk of asset dissipation, the merits was for the US court and granted a holding injunction. The plaintiffs were advised that such an application in the US would fail and sought declaratory relief instead. Rix J held that the forensic activity in Illinois should be regarded as if it were an application made and lost on the merits and discharged the injunction.
Held: There was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets and that by the time the matter was before them the plaintiffs had effective security over substantial assets. A two-stage approach should be adopted on an application for interim relief under s.25 namely: (a) whether the facts would warrant the relief sought if the substantive proceedings were brought in England; (b) if yes, whether in the terms of s.25(2) the fact that the court has no jurisdiction apart from that section makes it inexpedient to grant the interim relief sought. Much effort was being spent in English courts attempting to give effect to letters rogatory requesting the English court to order the production of documents and oral deposition from third parties to litigation in the USA. Such orders are not part of standard procedure in England. Discovery against non-parties will not be provided because it simply was not part of English procedure.
Judges:
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Schiemann and Lord Justice Waller
Citations:
Times 07-Dec-2001, [1998] EWCA Civ 1020, [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 159
Statutes:
Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Leave – Refco Inc and Another v Eastern Trading Co and others CA 4-Jun-1998
The defendant sought and was granted leave to appeal. . .
Cited by:
Appeal proceeded – Refco Inc and Another v Eastern Trading Co and others CA 4-Jun-1998
The defendant sought and was granted leave to appeal. . .
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167118