Convoy Collateral Limited v Broad Idea International Limited et al [2021] UKPC 24 overturns The Siskina [1979] AC 10, which has been the leading authority on injunctions for the past 44 years.
Delivering its judgment, the Privy Council said: ‘It is necessary to dispel the residual uncertainty emanating from The Siskina and to make it clear that the constraints on the power, and the exercise of the power, to grant freezing and other interim injunctions which were articulated in that case are not merely undesirable in modern day international commerce but legally unsound.
‘The shades of The Siskina have haunted this area of the law for far too long and they should now finally be laid to rest.’
Convoy Collateral claimed damages from Broad Idea, a company incorporated in the BVI with 50.1% of its shares owned by Hong Kong resident Dr Cho. Convoy applied in the BVI for freezing injunctions against Dr Cho and Broad Idea. At issue, however, was whether the BVI court had power to grant such an injunction. This issue was considered previously in Black Swan Investment ISA v Harvest View (BVIHCV 2009/399) (unreported) 23 March 2010, where the court held a freezing injunction could be granted against BVI companies said to be controlled by an individual subject to proceedings in South Africa.
Julie Engwirda, partner at Harneys, which acted for Convoy Collateral, said: ‘We were convinced that the original BVI decision in Black Swan was correctly decided and overturning this common law jurisdiction through legislative interpretation was not in line with either the intent of the legislation or modern practice.
‘That it took an appeal to the Privy Council to confirm that such a common law power exists, despite legislative development, underscores the intricacies of this area of law.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
