Zambia v Meer Care & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 1415 (17 December 2007)

Zambia v Meer Care & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 1415 (17 December 2007)

There was no substance to the appellants' claims of procedural irregularity, breach of Article 6, or bias. The ring-fencing regime and undertakings were adequate, and the appellants' non-participation was voluntary. The refusal to vary the freezing order was justified due to lack of supporting evidence. Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 1415
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia; Defendants: Meer Care & Desai & Others; Seventh Defendant / Appellant: Aaron Chungu; Ninth Defendant / Appellant: Faustin Kabwe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Applications Before the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ring Fencing Orders, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), State Immunity Act 1978, Freezing Orders, Bias and Apparent Bias, Procedural Irregularity
Civil Procedure Human Rights State Immunity Ring Fencing Orders Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) State Immunity Act 1978 Freezing Orders Bias and Apparent Bias +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia

Claimant / Respondent

Meer Care & Desai & Others

Defendants

Aaron Chungu

Seventh Defendant / Appellant

Faustin Kabwe

Ninth Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Applications Before the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural irregularities or breaches of Article 6 ECHR vitiated the High Court order against the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the ring-fencing regime and undertakings regarding state immunity were effective and properly implemented
  3. 3 Whether the judge showed bias or apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

There was no substance to the appellants' claims of procedural irregularity, breach of Article 6, or bias. The ring-fencing regime and undertakings were adequate, and the appellants' non-participation was voluntary. The refusal to vary the freezing order was justified due to lack of supporting evidence. Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused for both the main order and the freezing order variation
  • Permission to amend grounds of appeal to allege bias refused