A freezing order is relief in personam and creates no proprietary rights in the assets from time to time subject to it. Buckley LJ said that where an injunction required assets up to a stated value to be kept within the jurisdiction: ‘There must always, in theory at least, be a possibility that the charterers may at some time have assets in excess of that value within the jurisdiction, in which event they would be free to remove from the jurisdiction at their choice any asset representing the excess or part of it.’ A court may also intervene when such an injunction causes real and unwarranted harm either to a party or to a stranger to the suit.
Judges:
Buckley LJ
Citations:
[1978] 1 WLR 966, [1978] 3 All ER 164, (1978) 1 Lloyds Rep 425
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Flightline Ltd v Edwards and Another ChD 2-Aug-2002
Money had been paid into an account in the joint names of the parties’ solicitors in order to purchase the release of the applicants from an asset freezing order. The respondent company was in liquidation. It was argued that the payment of funds . .
Cited – Ernst Kastner v Marc Jason, Davis Sherman, Brigitte Sherman CA 2-Dec-2004
The parties had agreed that their dispute should be resolved before the Jewish Beth Din according to Jewish substantive and procedural law. K was granted an interim freezing order. The defendant sold the asset, and K sought to assert a charge.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.181199