The company was incorporated in a non-Convention country, namely the Cayman Islands. It had no assets in the Cayman Islands and all its assets were in Kazakhstan.
Held: Mr Moss rejected a submission that one should look at only the ability to enforce the judgment in the country of incorporation, namely the Cayman Islands, saying: ‘To interpret the provision in such a way that the risk of enforcement relates only to the place of residence of the counterclaiming company would, in my judgment, be absurd if, as in the present case, the place of incorporation is one which is no doubt simply convenient for tax and regulatory reasons. To say that the risk only relates to enforcement in that jurisdiction would be to give a completely unrealistic emphasis to the place of incorporation or residence . . The limit to the question relating to the risk of enforcement to the Cayman Islands alone would, in my judgment, would be to apply the discretion given by the CPR in a wholly unrealistic and impractical manner.’
Judges:
Gabriel Moss QC
Citations:
[2002] WL 1654967
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Somerset-Leeke and Another v Kay Trustees and Another ChD 1-May-2003
The defendants sought to challenge a refusal of the court to order security for costs to be made by the claimants on the basis that they had hidden assets to protect themselves against costs if the case did not succeed.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.276479
