Guerrero & Ors v Monterrico Metals Plc & Anor (Rev 1) [2009] EWHC 2475 (QB) (16 October 2009)

Guerrero & Ors v Monterrico Metals Plc & Anor (Rev 1) [2009] EWHC 2475 (QB) (16 October 2009)

Despite weaknesses and some non-disclosure, the Claimants have just about demonstrated a good arguable case against Monterrico for the purposes of a freezing injunction. The evidence is disputed and cannot be resolved at this interim stage. There is a real risk of dissipation of assets. The failures in disclosure do not, in this case, justify discharge of the injunction. The freezing injunction should be continued pending further proceedings.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2475
Parties
Claimants: Mario Alberto Tabra Guerrero & Others; First Defendant: Monterrico Metals PLC; Second Defendant: Rio Blanco Copper SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Continuation of Worldwide Freezing Injunction and Related Orders / Interim Application (post Without Notice, Inter Partes Hearing)
Outcome
Freezing injunction continued
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure Orders, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Non Disclosure, Personal Injury, Corporate Liability for Subsidiaries, Human Rights Abuses
Civil Procedure Tort Law Private International Law Human Rights Freezing Injunctions Disclosure Orders Vicarious Liability Negligence +6 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mario Alberto Tabra Guerrero & Others

Claimants

Monterrico Metals PLC

First Defendant

Rio Blanco Copper SA

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Continuation of Worldwide Freezing Injunction and Related Orders / Interim Application (post Without Notice, Inter Partes Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants made material non-disclosures or misrepresentations in the without notice application
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants have a good arguable case against the Defendants to justify continuation of the freezing injunction
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to continue the injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

Despite weaknesses and some non-disclosure, the Claimants have just about demonstrated a good arguable case against Monterrico for the purposes of a freezing injunction. The evidence is disputed and cannot be resolved at this interim stage. There is a real risk of dissipation of assets. The failures in disclosure do not, in this case, justify discharge of the injunction. The freezing injunction should be continued pending further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction continued

Orders

  • Continuation of worldwide freezing injunction against Monterrico Metals PLC up to £7,200,000
  • Continuation of related injunctions and disclosure orders as previously ordered