Parbulk II AS v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK & Ors [2011] EWHC 3143 (Comm) (30 November 2011)

Parbulk II AS v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK & Ors [2011] EWHC 3143 (Comm) (30 November 2011)

The court has jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing injunction against HSTPL, a non-cause-of-action defendant, where there is credible evidence of risk of dissipation and intra-group transfers, and where HSTPL holds assets of Heritage/HIT or is subject to processes enforceable by the court as a consequence of judgment. The injunction is justified to ensure effective enforcement of judgments/awards, but quantum is limited to the amount of HSTPL's indebtedness to Heritage/HIT. Piercing the corporate veil is not warranted absent evidence of sham or façade.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3143 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Parbulk II AS; Respondent/defendant: PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK; Respondent/defendant: Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Heritage Maritime Limited SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Injunction, Enforcement of Arbitration Award, Security for Costs) / Post Interlocutory, Judgment on Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Related Applications
Outcome
Freezing injunctions continued against all three Respondents; Heritage's application to set aside enforcement order refused (save on terms); security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction, Security for Costs
Commercial Law Arbitration Injunctions Company Law Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Corporate Veil Jurisdiction +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parbulk II AS

Claimant

PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK

Respondent/defendant

Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Heritage Maritime Limited SA

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Injunction, Enforcement of Arbitration Award, Security for Costs) / Post Interlocutory, Judgment on Continuation of Freezing Injunction and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing injunction against HSTPL, a non-cause-of-action defendant (NCAD)
  2. 2 Whether the assets of HSTPL can be frozen to secure enforcement of judgments/awards against Heritage and HIT
  3. 3 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to treat HSTPL's assets as those of Heritage/HIT

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing injunction against HSTPL, a non-cause-of-action defendant, where there is credible evidence of risk of dissipation and intra-group transfers, and where HSTPL holds assets of Heritage/HIT or is subject to processes enforceable by the court as a consequence of judgment. The injunction is justified to ensure effective enforcement of judgments/awards, but quantum is limited to the amount of HSTPL's indebtedness to Heritage/HIT. Piercing the corporate veil is not warranted absent evidence of sham or façade.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunctions continued against all three Respondents; Heritage's application to set aside enforcement order refused (save on terms); security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Continuation of worldwide freezing injunctions against HIT, HSTPL, and Heritage, limited to amount of HSTPL's indebtedness to Heritage/HIT.
  • Heritage to provide security for full amount of Award.