Application to continue a freezing injunction.
Held: The order should continue. The defendant companies were registered in countries where enforcement would be more difficult, one of the defendants was a single purpose vehicle,and there was evidence of real funding difficulties. The defendant companies were: ‘companies outside of the jurisdiction; where they have the ability to create complex mechanisms which are not transparent; where they have created this single purpose vehicle specifically to avoid financial exposure; where the only asset is equity in the Berners Hotel and where the Respondents’ behaviour in response to the claims by Chorus shows a pattern of evasiveness, I consider it proper to draw the inference that, as was set out in The Niedersachsen [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 600, the refusal of an injunction would involve a real risk that a judgment awarded in favour of Chorus would remain unsatisfied.’
Judges:
Ramsey J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 3622 (TCC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See also – Shepherd Construction Ltd v Berners (BVI) Ltd and Another TCC 25-Mar-2010
The defendants sought a release from an asset freezing order, saying that there was no good reason to anticipate any dissipation of assets. An action between the parties had been settled on terms, but the defendant had not met payments. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252367
