AAA v BBB & Ors (Re Consequentials) [2025] EWHC 1763 (Comm) (04 July 2025)
The court refused the Claimant's application for permission to use materials obtained under the original freezing order for a new application, holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a further freezing order under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the breaches of full and frank disclosure were serious and culpable, and the requirements for risk of dissipation and collateral use were not met. The Claimant is not entitled to retain any benefit from orders wrongly obtained.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 1763 (Comm)
- Parties
- Claimant/applicant: AAA; Defendant/respondent: BBB; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: CCC; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: DDD; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: EEE; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: FFF; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: GGG; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: HHH; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: III; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: JJJ; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: KKK; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: LLL; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: MMM; Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent: NNN
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 04 July 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court (kbd) Consequentials Hearing / Post Judgment, Application for Further Relief and Collateral Use
- Outcome
- Claimant's application refused; existing freezing order set aside; no new freezing order granted; no permission for collateral use of materials.
- Legal Topics
- Worldwide Freezing Orders, Collateral Use of Documents, 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.
Parties
AAA
Claimant/applicant
BBB
Defendant/respondent
CCC
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
DDD
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
EEE
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
FFF
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
GGG
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
HHH
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
III
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
JJJ
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
KKK
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
LLL
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
MMM
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
NNN
Non Cause of Action Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court (kbd) Consequentials Hearing / Post Judgment, Application for Further Relief and Collateral Use
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant permission for collateral use of materials obtained under a discharged freezing order for a new application
- 2 Whether a new interim freezing order should be granted
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a further freezing order under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused the Claimant's application for permission to use materials obtained under the original freezing order for a new application, holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant a further freezing order under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the breaches of full and frank disclosure were serious and culpable, and the requirements for risk of dissipation and collateral use were not met. The Claimant is not entitled to retain any benefit from orders wrongly obtained.
Court Disposition
Claimant's application refused; existing freezing order set aside; no new freezing order granted; no permission for collateral use of materials.
Orders
- Existing freezing order set aside
- No new freezing order granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment