Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 989 (26 June 2002)

Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 989 (26 June 2002)

The disclosure order is an integral and essential part of the worldwide freezing order, necessary to ensure its effectiveness and to police against dissipation of assets. There was no sufficient reason to stay the disclosure requirement pending the application to set aside the freezing order, and the judge at first instance did not misdirect himself in refusing a stay. The potential prejudice to the defendants from disclosure was outweighed by the risk of irreparable harm to the claimants if the order was stayed.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 989
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Motorola Credit Corporation; First Appellant/defendant: Cem Cegiz Uzan; Second Appellant/defendant: Kemal Uzan; Appellant/defendant: Murat Hakan Uzan; Fourth Appellant/defendant: Aysegal Akay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal of Stay of Disclosure Order Pending Application to Set Aside Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Mareva Injunctions, Disclosure of Assets, Jurisdiction Under Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Worldwide Injunctions, Interim Relief, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Mareva Injunctions Disclosure of Assets Jurisdiction Under Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Worldwide Injunctions Interim Relief +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motorola Credit Corporation

Respondent/claimant

Cem Cegiz Uzan

First Appellant/defendant

Kemal Uzan

Second Appellant/defendant

Murat Hakan Uzan

Appellant/defendant

Aysegal Akay

Fourth Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal of Stay of Disclosure Order Pending Application to Set Aside Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disclosure element of a worldwide freezing order should be stayed pending the hearing of an application to set aside the order
  2. 2 Whether the judge at first instance misdirected himself in refusing a stay of the disclosure order
  3. 3 The relationship between freezing orders and mandatory disclosure in cross-border fraud cases

Ratio Decidendi

The disclosure order is an integral and essential part of the worldwide freezing order, necessary to ensure its effectiveness and to police against dissipation of assets. There was no sufficient reason to stay the disclosure requirement pending the application to set aside the freezing order, and the judge at first instance did not misdirect himself in refusing a stay. The potential prejudice to the defendants from disclosure was outweighed by the risk of irreparable harm to the claimants if the order was stayed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs summarily assessed against both defendants: £25,000 to be paid on account within 21 days; the balance to go for detailed assessment.
  • Schedules of assets to be released.