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 Knowles order requiring asset disclosure. Service requirements are satisfied or dispensed with as the defendant is fully aware of the proceedings and no injustice is caused by procedural defects. The court may proceed in the defendant's absence. A writ of sequestration is justified to enforce compliance, and indemnity costs are appropriate due to the defendant's unreasonable conduct.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3135
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 Contempt, Writ of Sequestration, and Costs
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Asset Disclosure, Service of Process, Writ of Sequestration, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Civil Procedure Arbitration Commercial Law Contempt of Court Enforcement of Arbitral 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 Contempt, Writ of Sequestration, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is in contempt of court for failing to comply with an asset disclosure order
  2. 2 Whether substituted service and dispensation with personal service are valid in committal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a penal notice on the application notice is fatal to the application

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is in contempt of court for failing to comply with the Knowles order requiring asset disclosure. Service requirements are satisfied or dispensed with as the defendant is fully aware of the proceedings and no injustice is caused by procedural defects. The court may proceed in the defendant's absence. A writ of sequestration is justified to enforce compliance, and indemnity costs are appropriate 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