Belair LLC v Basel LLC [2009] EWHC 725 (Comm) (03 April 2009)

Belair LLC v Basel LLC [2009] EWHC 725 (Comm) (03 April 2009)

The case was one of urgency within s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitral tribunal was not yet constituted and there was a real risk that the respondent might deal with the only asset (the palace) before the tribunal could consider interim relief. The claimant had a good arguable case, and the risk of dissipation was sufficient given the removal of protective restrictions from the Georgian Land Registry and the respondent's refusal to accept an order registrable in Georgia. The balance of convenience favoured granting a time-limited freezing injunction, with the claimant required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages fortified by security of US$300,000.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 725 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: BELAIR LLC; Respondent: BASEL LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3) / Interim Application for Freezing Injunction Pending Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal
Outcome
Freezing injunction granted under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996, time-limited until the arbitral tribunal can consider interim relief.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Interim Relief, Asset Preservation, Arbitration Act 1996 S.44, Urgency in Arbitration, Risk of Dissipation, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Arbitration Commercial Law Freezing Injunction Interim Relief Asset Preservation Arbitration Act 1996 S.44 Urgency in Arbitration Risk of Dissipation +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BELAIR LLC

Claimant

BASEL LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.44(3) / Interim Application for Freezing Injunction Pending Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case is one of urgency under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 justifying court intervention
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for relief
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The case was one of urgency within s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 because the arbitral tribunal was not yet constituted and there was a real risk that the respondent might deal with the only asset (the palace) before the tribunal could consider interim relief. The claimant had a good arguable case, and the risk of dissipation was sufficient given the removal of protective restrictions from the Georgian Land Registry and the respondent's refusal to accept an order registrable in Georgia. The balance of convenience favoured granting a time-limited freezing injunction, with the claimant required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages fortified by security of US$300,000.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction granted under s.44(3) Arbitration Act 1996, time-limited until the arbitral tribunal can consider interim relief.

Orders

  • Respondent restrained from disposing of, dealing with, charging or diminishing the value of the palace property in Tbilisi until the arbitral tribunal is constituted and can determine interim relief, or until a long-stop date to be agreed.
  • Claimant to provide a cross-undertaking in damages, fortified by security of US$300,000.