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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll