Worldwide Freezing Injunction: clarification of the correct test for the existence of assets


The Court of Appeal has recently considered a case where Chabra worldwide freezing orders – a well-used tool of litigators, not only to secure assets to satisfy English judgments, but also in aid of foreign proceedings, pursuant to Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA) – were sought pursuant to the CJJA in the case of Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority & Others v Bestfort Development LLP & Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1014. The Respondents over which the orders were sought were various English companies owned by the Defendant. The claims themselves were taking place in the UAE and Georgia. The case is most interesting because Longmore LJ allowed the appeal in part and in doing so clarified the law as to what the correct test was for the existence of assets.

Read the full article here.

More Articles

A banker’s Quincecare duty: practical implications of some recent judicial authority

In Barclays Bank plc v. Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363, it was held that “a banker must refrain from executing an order if and for as long as the banker is ‘put on inquiry’ in the sense that he has reasonable grounds (although not necessarily proof) for believing that the order is an attempt to misappropriate the funds of the company”.

Read more

Are you ready for strong customer authentication?

Fraud Insights: Protecting shareholder rights through unfair prejudice petitions

Fraud Insights: Worldwide freezing order continued despite allegations of delay