Judgment creditors obtained a garnishee order nisi, but the bank objected to the order being made absolute. The account was in Hong Kong, where there was a real danger, that the law would not relieve them of their obligation to the account holders to pay the balance to them, after satisfaction of the garnishee debt.
Held: There is no longer reciprocal enforcement of judgment debts, between the UK and Hong Kong. The person garnisheed must be within the jurisdiction, but the debt need not be. The court should exercise its discretion not to make the order absolute unless the garnishee would be discharged from its own debt. That question was to be looked at according to the law of the jurisdiction in which that debt was due. In this case, because in part of the Bank’s own clear terms, and in part because of its right to restitutionary relief at common law, the risk of them failing to recover the debt from the debtor was not a real or substantial one.
Judges:
Mr Justice Keene, Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Schiemann
Citations:
Gazette 20-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1317, [2001] All ER (Comm) 721, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 627, [2002] CLC 60, [2001] 2 LLR 627, [2001] CP Rep 112
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Societe Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See Also – Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others ComC 23-Jan-2001
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Perry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 25-Jul-2012
The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction, Commercial
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159871