The court considered the exercise by the court of its discretion to release a party who has obtained a freezing order from his undertaking not to use information obtained from the party against whom the freezing order is made in contempt proceedings against that party.
Held: There was no general principle which required there to exist exceptional circumstances before a party who had come into possession of information as a result of the execution of a world wide freezing order could be released from his undertaking not to use that information for collateral purposes. The court should provide significant protections to a party subjected to cross examination as to his assets for an asset freezing order, but the court should not decline to assist a party requiring permission to use that information for contempt proceedings necessary to protect its own proper interests.
Judges:
Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Longmore
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1745, Times 17-Jan-2007
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Dadourian Group Int Inc v Simms and others (No 1) CA 11-Apr-2006
The court was asked to consider how it should exercise its discretion to order a world-wide asset freezing order.
Held: It dismissed the appeal in this case, but took the opportunity to provide eight guidelines for the way in which the . .
Appeal from – Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others ChD 24-Nov-2006
The Claimants sought, principally, damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy against the first to fourth Defendants and damages for breach of contract against the third and fourth Defendants.
Ownership and control of a company are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247482
