header-logo header-logo

31 October 2025
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 31 October 2025

Freezing order

Alta Trading UK Ltd and other companies v Bosworth and others [2025] EWHC 2724 (Comm)

The Commercial Court ruled on applications concerning an inquiry into damages relating to a worldwide freezing order. Following dismissal of the claimants’ fraud claims and enforcement of the defendants’ undertakings in damages, the defendants sought to amend their statements of case to argue that the claimants had dishonestly obtained and maintained the freezing order. The court granted permission for most of the defendants’ proposed amendments, including their argument that the claimants should not be permitted to rely on their own allegedly dishonest conduct in the underlying proceedings to defeat causation in the damages inquiry. The court held that the ‘own wrong’ principle, while not a freestanding principle of universal application, was at least well arguable in this context as a matter of public policy or evaluative judgment in causation. The court rejected the claimants’ application to strike out the dishonesty allegations, finding they could be relevant to causation issues, and allowed some of the defendants’ applications

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll