ICBC Standard Bank Plc & Ors v Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC (EMC) [2017] EWHC 3135 (QB) (17 November 2017)

ICBC Standard Bank Plc & Ors v Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC (EMC) [2017] EWHC 3135 (QB) (17 November 2017)

The defendant is in contempt of court for failing to comply with the asset disclosure order; service requirements are dispensed with as service was effectively achieved and no injustice is caused; the court may proceed in the defendant's absence; a writ of sequestration is appropriate to enforce compliance; indemnity costs are justified due to the defendant's unreasonable conduct.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3135 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: ICBC Standard Bank PLC; Claimant/applicant: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd; Claimant/applicant: London Forfaiting Company Limited; Claimant/applicant: Amsterdam Trade Bank N.V.; Defendant/respondent: "Erdenet Mining Corporation" LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application in Support of Arbitration Enforcement / Judgment on Application for Declaration of Contempt, Writ of Sequestration, and Related Orders
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Asset Disclosure, Service of Process, Writ of Sequestration, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Civil Procedure Arbitration Commercial Law Contempt of Court Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Asset Disclosure Service of Process Writ of Sequestration +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICBC Standard Bank PLC

Claimant/applicant

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd

Claimant/applicant

London Forfaiting Company Limited

Claimant/applicant

Amsterdam Trade Bank N.V.

Claimant/applicant

"Erdenet Mining Corporation" LLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application in Support of Arbitration Enforcement / Judgment on Application for Declaration of Contempt, Writ of Sequestration, and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is in contempt of court for failing to comply with an asset disclosure order
  2. 2 Whether service requirements for committal and sequestration applications were satisfied or should be dispensed with
  3. 3 Whether the court should proceed in the absence of the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is in contempt of court for failing to comply with the asset disclosure order; service requirements are dispensed with as service was effectively achieved and no injustice is caused; the court may proceed in the defendant's absence; a writ of sequestration is appropriate to enforce compliance; indemnity costs are justified due to the defendant's unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant is in contempt of court for breach of the Knowles order dated 25 July 2017
  • Permission to issue a writ of sequestration against all real and personal property of the defendant