Cyprus Popular Bank Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos & Ors

Cyprus Popular Bank Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos & Ors

The English High Court has discretion to grant or refuse a freezing order sought as a protective measure under Articles 47.2 and 47.3 of the Judgments Regulation. The claimant is not entitled as of right to such relief; conventional principles apply, including the need for solid evidence of risk of dissipation. In this case, despite unexplained delay, there was sufficient evidence of risk of dissipation to justify granting the freezing order until determination of the pending appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Cyprus Popular Bank Co. Limited; Defendants: Andreas Vgenopoulos & Ors.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Domestic Freezing Order Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for domestic freezing order granted (with notice) until determination of the pending appeal.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Protective Measures, Judgments Regulation (brussels I), Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure International Enforcement Freezing Orders Protective Measures Judgments Regulation (brussels I) Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyprus Popular Bank Co. Limited

Claimant

Andreas Vgenopoulos & Ors.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Domestic Freezing Order Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled as of right to a domestic freezing order under Articles 47.2 and 47.3 of the Judgments Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the English High Court has discretion to grant or refuse a freezing order in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether delay and evidence of risk of dissipation justify or preclude the grant of a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The English High Court has discretion to grant or refuse a freezing order sought as a protective measure under Articles 47.2 and 47.3 of the Judgments Regulation. The claimant is not entitled as of right to such relief; conventional principles apply, including the need for solid evidence of risk of dissipation. In this case, despite unexplained delay, there was sufficient evidence of risk of dissipation to justify granting the freezing order until determination of the pending appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for domestic freezing order granted (with notice) until determination of the pending appeal.

Orders

  • Freezing order granted against the defendants, operative until determination of the appeal scheduled for the end of next month.