Tidewater Marine International Inc v Phoenixtide Offshore Nigeria Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 2748 (Comm) (06 October 2015)

Tidewater Marine International Inc v Phoenixtide Offshore Nigeria Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 2748 (Comm) (06 October 2015)

The respondents failed to discharge the burden of persuasion that no other assets were available to fund their legal expenses, and even if they had, the overall justice of the case—given their continuing contempt of court and deliberate flouting of orders—required refusal of the application to use frozen funds for legal expenses.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2748 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Tidewater Marine International Inc; Defendant/first Respondent: Phoenixtide Offshore Nigeria Limited; Second Respondent: H. H. The Otunba Ayora Dr Bola Kuforiji-Olubi, OON; Third Respondent: Olutokunbo Afolabi Kuforiji
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (variation of Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application for Use of Frozen Funds for Legal Expenses
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Use of Frozen Assets for Legal Expenses, Contempt of Court, Jurisdiction, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Use of Frozen Assets for Legal Expenses Contempt of Court Jurisdiction Asset Disclosure

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tidewater Marine International Inc

Claimant/applicant

Phoenixtide Offshore Nigeria Limited

Defendant/first Respondent

H. H. The Otunba Ayora Dr Bola Kuforiji-Olubi, OON

Second Respondent

Olutokunbo Afolabi Kuforiji

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (variation of Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application for Use of Frozen Funds for Legal Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents should be permitted to use funds in a Swiss bank account frozen by worldwide freezing order to pay legal expenses and costs
  2. 2 Whether respondents have discharged the burden of showing no other available assets for legal expenses
  3. 3 Whether overall justice requires refusal of application due to respondents' contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to discharge the burden of persuasion that no other assets were available to fund their legal expenses, and even if they had, the overall justice of the case—given their continuing contempt of court and deliberate flouting of orders—required refusal of the application to use frozen funds for legal expenses.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' application for permission to use funds in the Bank Julius Baer account for legal expenses and costs is refused.