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

Issue: 7592 / Categories: Features , Commercial

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

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

Twenty Essex—Thomas Hibbs, Jack Hollingworth & Sam Pearce

Three new tenants join Twenty Essex

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Auditors tighten the disclosure screws

The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations

NLJ this week: Telecoms tenants caught in a legal gap

A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

NLJ this week: Due process holds the line

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

NLJ this week: Credit law’s regulatory reset

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules

NLJ this week: Employment law’s four-point check

The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause

Error message

Going head to head

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Twenty Essex—Thomas Hibbs, Jack Hollingworth & Sam Pearce