31 January 2014 / David Sandy

Issue: 7592 / Categories: Features , Commercial

Going head to head

Incompatible judgments on the same day have led to confusion over the scope of standard wording, says David Sandy

If a respondent subject to a freezing order in standard terms arranges for the disposal of assets of a company he owns and controls, is the respondent in breach of the freezing order?

In Group Seven Limited v Allied Investment Corporation Limited and Others [2013] EWHC 1509 (Ch) Hildyard J decided that such a respondent would not be in breach of the freezing order. In Lakatamia Shipping Company v Nobu Su and Others [2013] EWHC 1814 (Comm), Burton J decided that the respondent would be in breach of the freezing order. Both judgments were handed down on the same day, 6 June 2013.

Who is right? And if Hildyard J is right, what steps can be taken to ensure that a freezing order does extend to catch assets held by a company controlled and owned by the respondent?

It is perhaps surprising that this issue has not come up for decision before,

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

Going head to head

Incompatible judgments on the same day have led to confusion over the scope of standard wording, says David Sandy

If a respondent subject to a freezing order in standard terms arranges for the disposal of assets of a company he owns and controls, is the respondent in breach of the freezing order?

Who is right? And if Hildyard J is right, what steps can be taken to ensure that a freezing order does extend to catch assets held by a company controlled and owned by the respondent?

It is perhaps surprising that this issue has not come up for decision before,

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Chair of the Association of Pension Lawyers joins as partner

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Group names Shakespeare Martineau partner head of Sheffield office

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Four legal directors promoted to partner across UK offices

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation

NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere

Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group

NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall

A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision

NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?

An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading

Error message

Going head to head

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Blake Morgan—four promotions