Zambia v Meer Care & Ors

Zambia v Meer Care & Ors

The Court found no substance in the appellants' grounds: the ring-fencing regime was adequate, there was no evidence of breach or prejudice, the appellants' non-participation was voluntary, and the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated. The refusal to vary the freezing order was justified due to lack of evidence. Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds.

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 / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment and Related Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ring Fencing Orders, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Freezing Orders, Bias Allegations, Use of Evidence in Concurrent Proceedings
Civil Procedure Human Rights State Immunity Ring Fencing Orders Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Freezing Orders Bias Allegations Use of Evidence in Concurrent Proceedings

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 8 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 / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural irregularities or breaches of Article 6 ECHR vitiated the High Court judgment
  2. 2 Whether the ring-fencing regime was effective and properly implemented
  3. 3 Whether the judge showed bias or apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no substance in the appellants' grounds: the ring-fencing regime was adequate, there was no evidence of breach or prejudice, the appellants' non-participation was voluntary, and the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated. The refusal to vary the freezing order was justified due to lack of evidence. Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

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