The rule that an ordinary freezing order does not entitle a party in whose favour it was granted to say that he had a property or security interest in the respondent’s assets in question, applies where a freezing order fixes on a single specified asset and even where that asset is an interest in land.
Citations:
[1984] 1 WLR 25
Cited by:
Cited – Ernst Kastner v Marc Jason, Davis Sherman, Brigitte Sherman CA 2-Dec-2004
The parties had agreed that their dispute should be resolved before the Jewish Beth Din according to Jewish substantive and procedural law. K was granted an interim freezing order. The defendant sold the asset, and K sought to assert a charge.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.220551