The claimant had sought payment of a substantial shortfall debt from the defendant after repossessing and selling the defendant’s home. It compromised that debt, and was paid, but now sought to re-open the compromise on the basis of an alleged misrepresentation by the defendant as to his means. A world-wide asset freezing order had been granted. The defendant applied for further funds to be released from the sums frozen.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant had not shown that his position had changed since the order had been made. However the court dounted that the original order had been correctly granted, and was concerned that an order should not prevent dealings in the ordinary course of business.
Judges:
Chadwick LJ, Clarke LJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1750
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Iraqi Ministry of Defence and Others v Arcepey Shipping Co SA, The Angel Bell 1980
The court considered whether a defendant should be allowed to pay his debts as they fell due despite an asset freezing order.
Held: The Mareva jurisdiction should not ‘improve the position of claimants’. Rather, it should prevent the injustice . .
Cited – Sundt Wrigley Co Ltd v Wrigley CA 23-Jun-1993
In an asset freezing order, where the defendant seeks leave to discharge liabilities, the nature of the plaintiff’s interest makes a difference. The court distinguished between cases where the plaintiff has a proprietary claim in the frozen assets . .
Cited by:
Cited – Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others ChD 5-Apr-2006
Application to discharge asset freezing order.
Held: The defendant had displayed a readiness to do what was necessary to avoid compliance with court orders. The application (and others) were dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218522