Tidewater Marine International Inc v Phoenixtide Offshore Nigeria Ltd & Ors

Tidewater Marine International Inc v Phoenixtide Offshore Nigeria Ltd & Ors

The Respondents failed to discharge the burden of persuasion that no other assets were available to fund their legal expenses, given their history of dishonesty, lack of documentary evidence, and vague explanations. Even if they had, the overall justice of the case, including their continuing contempt of court and the fact that the proceedings only arose due to their contempt, required that the application be dismissed.

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 Application (variation of Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Legal Expenses From Frozen Assets, Contempt of Court, Jurisdiction Challenge
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Legal Expenses From Frozen Assets Contempt of Court Jurisdiction Challenge

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
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 Application (variation of Freezing Order) / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Respondents should be permitted to use funds in a Swiss bank account subject to a freezing order to pay legal expenses and a costs order
  2. 2 Whether Respondents have discharged the burden of showing no other available assets for legal expenses
  3. 3 Whether overall justice requires the order given 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, given their history of dishonesty, lack of documentary evidence, and vague explanations. Even if they had, the overall justice of the case, including their continuing contempt of court and the fact that the proceedings only arose due to their contempt, required that the application be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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