Manchester Shipping Ltd v Balfour Worldwide Ltd & Anor

Manchester Shipping Limited has a good arguable case that it suffered loss as a result of the defendants' conspiracy to divert hire payments, and there was no material non-disclosure warranting discharge of the freezing orders. The freezing orders should therefore continue.

Parties: Claimant: Manchester Shipping Limited; Defendant: Balfour Worldwide Limited; Defendant: Nikolay Victorovich Sochin
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 February 2019
Procedural Posture: Commercial Court Freezing Order Discharge Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Orders
Outcome: Application to discharge the worldwide freezing orders dismissed; freezing orders to continue.
Legal Topics: Freezing Orders, Fraud, Material Non Disclosure, Interim Relief

Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Fraud Material Non Disclosure Interim Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Manchester Shipping Limited

Claimant

Balfour Worldwide Limited

Defendant

Nikolay Victorovich Sochin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Freezing Order Discharge Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimant has suffered actionable loss justifying continuation of the freezing orders
2 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant on the without notice application warranting discharge of the freezing orders

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the worldwide freezing orders dismissed; freezing orders to continue.

Orders

Worldwide freezing orders to continue in the form and amount previously granted.
Manchester to give credit for any sums recovered from Morshelf.