Cyprus Popular Bank Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos & Ors [2016] EWHC 1695 (QB) (22 June 2016)

Cyprus Popular Bank Co Ltd v Vgenopoulos & Ors [2016] EWHC 1695 (QB) (22 June 2016)

The English court retains discretion to grant a freezing order as a protective measure under Articles 47.2 and 47.3 of the Judgments Regulation; the applicant is not entitled to such relief as of right. On the evidence, there is a sufficient risk of dissipation to justify the order, and the delay, though regrettable and largely unexplained, does not in this case warrant refusal of relief.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1695 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Cyprus Popular Bank Co. Limited; Defendants: Andreas Vgenopoulos & Ors.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Domestic Freezing Order (protective Measures) Under Judgments Regulation / Post Judgment, Application for Interim Relief Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for domestic freezing order granted (interim, pending appeal)
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Protective Measures, Judgments Regulation (brussels I), Discretion of Domestic Courts, Risk of Dissipation, Delay in Seeking Relief
Civil Procedure Private International Law Enforcement of Judgments Freezing Orders Protective Measures Judgments Regulation (brussels I) Discretion of Domestic Courts Risk of Dissipation +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyprus Popular Bank Co. Limited

Claimant

Andreas Vgenopoulos & Ors.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Domestic Freezing Order (protective Measures) Under Judgments Regulation / Post Judgment, Application for Interim Relief Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled as of right to a domestic freezing order under Articles 47.2 and 47.3 of the Judgments Regulation or whether the English court retains discretion to grant such relief
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supports a real risk of dissipation justifying a freezing order
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking relief should bar the grant of a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The English court retains discretion to grant a freezing order as a protective measure under Articles 47.2 and 47.3 of the Judgments Regulation; the applicant is not entitled to such relief as of right. On the evidence, there is a sufficient risk of dissipation to justify the order, and the delay, though regrettable and largely unexplained, does not in this case warrant refusal of relief.

Court Disposition

Application for domestic freezing order granted (interim, pending appeal)

Orders

  • Freezing order to be made against the defendants, operative until determination of the pending appeal at the end of next month.