Khawar Qureshi QC and Tom Sprange discuss the latest developments in freezing orders
Worldwide freezing orders have historically received a mixed reception. The power to grant a freezing injunction in relation to foreign assets was first recognized in Babanaft International Co SA v Bassatne [1990] Ch 13, [1989] 1 All ER 433. Supporters of this form of relief consider it to be one of the most effective tools available to a claimant in large-scale international frauds and the “guided missile” of the wide array of relief available from the English courts.
Others complain that worldwide freezing orders are expensive, unwieldy and ultimately ineffective, but worst of all an imperialistic attempt by the English courts to assert a jurisdiction which is excessive and at odds with the approach of most other courts.
deliberate breaches
Lexi Holdings v Luqman and others [2007] EWHC 1508 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 23 (Jul) offers a recent example of the English courts’ approach.
The company’s administrators alleged that Shaid Luqman (the company’s managing director) had
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
