Bates v Microstar Ltd and Another: ChD 28 Mar 2003

The applicant sought leave to commence proceedings in another jurisdiction. It had earlier obtained a freezing order against the defendant’s assets by giving an undertaking not to issue proceedings without leave.
Held: Permission should be given. The purpose of the exceptional procedure of making a freezing order at the same time was to ensure that the success of an action was not defeated by assets being hidden. When looking to a request to be released from such an undertaking the court should look to CPR 11.1(2) to see what elements had to be queried as to the fairness or justice of such a release. Here, the claimant would not obtain any benefit from his action in England without the foreign proceedings, the defendants abroad were the directors of the company here, and without the freezing order no complaint could have been made about the new action. In these circumstances, the applicant was to be released from his undertaking.

Citations:

Times 15-Apr-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 1.1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180990