Those applying for international asset freezing orders should bear in mind the following points: An asset freezing order (other than a proprietary order) was a serious interference with a person’s rights, and was usually granted without notice. Accordingly an applicant had a duty to fully inform the respondent well before the on notice hearing. A sworn statement in support should normally be supplied. A failure to comply with an undertaking might lead to the order’s discharge. The order should be framed to cause minimum interference. A sufficiently strong case for making the order must be shown, and the onus lay on the applicant to show a clear need: ‘once the court considers that there is a real case for granting an injunction the fact that it will cause or appears that it will cause no or little harm to the respondent is a fact that the applicant can pray in aid.’
Neuberger J
Times 05-Dec-2003, (2003] EWHC 3082
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jewellery Appraisal Services v Belson and others QBD 11-Apr-2005
The defendants had sold a business and included a non-compete covenant. The claimants sought to enforce it against them. It was said that they had approached insurers with a view to commencing business supplying jewelry. The defendants said their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.188625