header-logo header-logo

03 March 2011 / Caroline Halliday , Graham Huntley
Issue: 7455 / Categories: Features , Profession , Marketing
printer mail-detail

Cold comfort

When a freezing order is not enough is it time to get the receivers in, ask Graham Huntley & Caroline Halliday

In a world where financial structures are becoming ever more sophisticated and complex, we are used to seeing the law adapt and evolve to address the new challenges that these present. However, we sometimes need to remind ourselves of how our existing arsenal of weapons can come to our aid in fighting new legal battles, and this can include appointing receivers in support of freezing orders.

The High Court’s power to appoint a receiver is covered by the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37(1). The development of the Mareva regime pursuant to the same legislation in the mid-1970s paved the way for receivers to be appointed pre-judgment in support of freezing orders, either at the same time as the freezing order or subsequently. This is not to say that the floodgates opened: the remedy has always been seen as of a “drastic” nature, which should be employed only in exceptional circumstances. However,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll