A world wide asset freezing order, should as regards property in other jurisdictions allow that those having control of such assets must be free to deal with them as required by local law and other legal obligations. An order had included a ‘Baltic proviso’ The appellant suggested it was not correct.
Held: A third party should not be required to breach its contractual obligations. The onus should be upon the claimant to obtain relief from the local court rather than upon the third party. The proviso was properly included, and indeed it should be included in the standard form..
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Tuckey, And, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Citations:
Times 10-Jan-2002, Gazette 27-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1933
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Baltic Shipping Co v Translink Shipping Ltd 1995
Further protection was afforded to those holding overseas assets of persons subject to Mareva injunctions. . .
Cited – Babanaft International Co SA v Bassatne CA 30-Jun-1988
The court considered whether the state in which enforcement of a judgment will take place should be the place where the debt is situated upon which it is sought to execute.
Held: There was nothing to preclude English courts from granting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Banking
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.167217