Parbulk II AS v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK & Ors

Parbulk II AS v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK & Ors

The English court will not continue worldwide freezing injunctions against HSTPL, a non-cause of action defendant with no assets in the jurisdiction, as there is no sufficient jurisdictional or subject matter basis under Practice Direction 6B or Chabra principles. The court will, however, continue the freezing injunction against HSTPL limited to any assets within the jurisdiction, up to the amount of its indebtedness to Heritage and HIT, as HSTPL submitted to the court's in personam jurisdiction and there is a real prospect of assets being brought into the jurisdiction in the future.

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 Arbitration Enforcement and Injunctive Relief / Ruling on Continuation of Freezing Injunctions and Jurisdictional Objections
Outcome
Worldwide freezing injunctions against HSTPL discharged; freezing injunction continued as to assets within the jurisdiction only; costs apportioned as specified.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders), Chabra Jurisdiction, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction and Service Out of the Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions (mareva Orders) Chabra Jurisdiction Piercing the Corporate Veil Jurisdiction and Service Out of the Jurisdiction Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 Arbitration Enforcement and Injunctive Relief / Ruling on Continuation of Freezing Injunctions and Jurisdictional Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to continue worldwide freezing injunctions against a non-cause of action defendant (NCAD) with no assets in the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the Chabra jurisdiction applies to HSTPL and the extent of any freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the corporate veil can be pierced to hold HSTPL liable for Heritage's debts

Ratio Decidendi

The English court will not continue worldwide freezing injunctions against HSTPL, a non-cause of action defendant with no assets in the jurisdiction, as there is no sufficient jurisdictional or subject matter basis under Practice Direction 6B or Chabra principles. The court will, however, continue the freezing injunction against HSTPL limited to any assets within the jurisdiction, up to the amount of its indebtedness to Heritage and HIT, as HSTPL submitted to the court's in personam jurisdiction and there is a real prospect of assets being brought into the jurisdiction in the future.

Court Disposition

Worldwide freezing injunctions against HSTPL discharged; freezing injunction continued as to assets within the jurisdiction only; costs apportioned as specified.

Orders

  • Freezing injunction against HSTPL continued only as to assets within the jurisdiction, up to the amount of its indebtedness to Heritage and HIT, subject to a cap of US$30 million.
  • HSTPL to disclose the amount and enforceability of its indebtedness to Heritage and HIT, and details of assets within the jurisdiction.