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: