Kensington International Ltd. v Republic of the Congo

Kensington International Ltd. v Republic of the Congo

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge was entitled to require notice to be given before granting a freezing injunction, given the absence of credible evidence of imminent dissipation, the scale and transparency of the oil operations, and the involvement of third-party entities. The judge's exercise of discretion was not shown to be wrong or unreasonable.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Kensington International Limited; Defendant/respondent: Republic of the Congo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) Decision Refusing Ex Parte Freezing Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders), Sovereign Immunity, Assignment of Debt, Enforcement Against State Assets
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Enforcement of Judgments Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders) Sovereign Immunity Assignment of Debt Enforcement Against State Assets

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kensington International Limited

Claimant/appellant

Republic of the Congo

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) Decision Refusing Ex Parte Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to grant a freezing injunction (Mareva order) ex parte against the Republic of the Congo and associated entities
  2. 2 Whether notice should have been required before granting freezing relief
  3. 3 Whether assets of SNPC, SNPC UK, and Olearius are assets of the Congo for enforcement purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge was entitled to require notice to be given before granting a freezing injunction, given the absence of credible evidence of imminent dissipation, the scale and transparency of the oil operations, and the involvement of third-party entities. The judge's exercise of discretion was not shown to be wrong or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; requirement for notice before freezing injunction affirmed