AAA v BBB (a company registered in Curacao) (Consequentials)

AAA v BBB (a company registered in Curacao) (Consequentials)

Permission for collateral use of materials obtained under the discharged freezing order is refused because the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a new freezing order, breaches of full and frank disclosure duties are serious and culpable, risk of dissipation is not established, and granting permission would allow the applicant to retain benefits of orders wrongly obtained.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: AAA; Defendant/respondent: BBB; Defendant/respondent: CCC; Defendant/respondent: DDD; Defendant/respondent: EEE; Defendant/respondent: FFF; Defendant/respondent: GGG; Defendant/respondent: HHH; Defendant/respondent: III; Defendant/respondent: JJJ; Defendant/respondent: KKK; Defendant/respondent: LLL; Defendant/respondent: MMM; Defendant/respondent: NNN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Consequentials Hearing Post Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's application refused.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Order, Collateral Use Undertaking, Full and Frank Disclosure, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996, Sanctions for Non Disclosure
Civil Procedure Arbitration Injunctions Worldwide Freezing Order Collateral Use Undertaking Full and Frank Disclosure Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996 Sanctions for Non Disclosure

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAA

Claimant/applicant

BBB

Defendant/respondent

CCC

Defendant/respondent

DDD

Defendant/respondent

EEE

Defendant/respondent

FFF

Defendant/respondent

GGG

Defendant/respondent

HHH

Defendant/respondent

III

Defendant/respondent

JJJ

Defendant/respondent

KKK

Defendant/respondent

LLL

Defendant/respondent

MMM

Defendant/respondent

NNN

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Consequentials Hearing Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for collateral use of materials obtained under a discharged freezing order
  2. 2 Whether a new interim freezing order should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a new freezing order under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for collateral use of materials obtained under the discharged freezing order is refused because the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a new freezing order, breaches of full and frank disclosure duties are serious and culpable, risk of dissipation is not established, and granting permission would allow the applicant to retain benefits of orders wrongly obtained.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application refused.

Orders

  • Existing freezing order set aside.
  • No new freezing order granted.