E & Ors v M [2013] EWHC 895 (Comm) (08 May 2013)

E & Ors v M [2013] EWHC 895 (Comm) (08 May 2013)

The Defendant has purged its contempt by providing a satisfactory affidavit of assets and an adequate apology. The WFO should not be discharged as the Claimant's delay, though criticised, is not sufficient reason, and the arrest of MV 'XYZ' did not breach the undertaking as it was not an order of similar nature to the WFO. The WFO should not be varied to include assets not legally or beneficially owned or controlled by the Defendant, as this would improperly disregard corporate personality. The counter-security should not be released as potential claims for loss remain possible.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 895 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: E; Applicant/claimant: F; Applicant/claimant: G; Respondent/defendant: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Commercial Court Application / Post Interim Orders, Hearing of Applications and Cross Applications
Outcome
Applications and cross-applications largely refused; declaration granted.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Order, Contempt of Court, Variation of Injunction, Release of Security, Corporate Control, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Worldwide Freezing Order Contempt of Court Variation of Injunction Release of Security Corporate Control +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Applicant/claimant

F

Applicant/claimant

G

Applicant/claimant

M

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Commercial Court Application / Post Interim Orders, Hearing of Applications and Cross Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has purged its contempt
  2. 2 Whether the Worldwide Freezing Order should be discharged
  3. 3 Whether the Worldwide Freezing Order should be varied to include certain assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant has purged its contempt by providing a satisfactory affidavit of assets and an adequate apology. The WFO should not be discharged as the Claimant's delay, though criticised, is not sufficient reason, and the arrest of MV 'XYZ' did not breach the undertaking as it was not an order of similar nature to the WFO. The WFO should not be varied to include assets not legally or beneficially owned or controlled by the Defendant, as this would improperly disregard corporate personality. The counter-security should not be released as potential claims for loss remain possible.

Court Disposition

Applications and cross-applications largely refused; declaration granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that Defendant has purged its contempt
  • Refusal to discharge the Worldwide Freezing Order