Banca Turco Romana SA v Cortuk & Ors [2018] EWHC 662 (Comm) (28 March 2018)

Banca Turco Romana SA v Cortuk & Ors [2018] EWHC 662 (Comm) (28 March 2018)

The freezing orders against the third to fifth defendants must be set aside due to deliberate and material breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure by BTR, including misrepresentation of parallel proceedings and the nature of assets, and because the English court lacks sufficient jurisdictional connection to the assets and respondents, with substantive enforcement and asset control issues already being litigated in foreign courts.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 662 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Banca Turco Română S.A. (in liquidation) (acting through its liquidator Fondul de Garantare a Depozitelor Bancare); First Defendant: Kamuran Çörtük; Second Defendant: Serkan Çörtük; Third Defendant: Yesim Sakarya; Fourth Defendant: Haşim Bora Özerman; Fifth Defendant: Füsun Gönen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Continue Freezing Orders (post Ex Parte Interim Relief) / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte Freezing Orders
Outcome
Freezing orders against third to fifth defendants set aside; applications for continuation refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Ancillary Relief, Full and Frank Disclosure, Chabra Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction, Asset Tracing
Civil Procedure Insolvency International Enforcement Fraud Freezing Orders Ancillary Relief Full and Frank Disclosure Chabra Jurisdiction +3 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Banca Turco Română S.A. (in liquidation) (acting through its liquidator Fondul de Garantare a Depozitelor Bancare)

Claimant

Kamuran Çörtük

First Defendant

Serkan Çörtük

Second Defendant

Yesim Sakarya

Third Defendant

Haşim Bora Özerman

Fourth Defendant

Füsun Gönen

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Continue Freezing Orders (post Ex Parte Interim Relief) / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing orders against non-cause of action defendants should be continued
  2. 2 Whether full and frank disclosure obligations were breached
  3. 3 Whether English court has jurisdiction to grant ancillary relief over assets and persons outside jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing orders against the third to fifth defendants must be set aside due to deliberate and material breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure by BTR, including misrepresentation of parallel proceedings and the nature of assets, and because the English court lacks sufficient jurisdictional connection to the assets and respondents, with substantive enforcement and asset control issues already being litigated in foreign courts.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders against third to fifth defendants set aside; applications for continuation refused.

Orders

  • Freezing orders against Yesim Sakarya, Haşim Bora Özerman, and Füsun Gönen discharged.
  • No further relief granted against these defendants.