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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll