The Court had to decide whether an order in the standard form of freezing order was effective to cover assets which were held in the defendant’s name but which belonged beneficially to third parties.
Held: It did not. A Mareva injunction in its standard form operated only to attach and freeze assets in which the person injuncted had some interest. They did not affect funds of which he was a bare trustee without any beneficial interest in the assets. The legal title did not mean that the assets were ‘owned’ by him in the relevant sense. Such assets could not be used to satisfy any claim against the person injuncted and were therefore not covered by the standard wording.
Judges:
Mummery and Nourse LJJ
Citations:
Times 16-Mar-2000, Gazette 23-Mar-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1695
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Federal Bank of the Middle East Limited v Charles Hadkinson and Others ChD 20-Oct-1999
Security for costs had been properly been required from a defendant who wished to appeal against an order, where that defendant was funded by a party outside the jurisdiction. The right of a party to appeal given by the new Civil Procedure Rules . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Federal Bank of the Middle East Limited v Charles Hadkinson and Others ChD 20-Oct-1999
Security for costs had been properly been required from a defendant who wished to appeal against an order, where that defendant was funded by a party outside the jurisdiction. The right of a party to appeal given by the new Civil Procedure Rules . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Trusts
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.80492