Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan & Ors

Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan & Ors

It was inexpedient for the English court to maintain worldwide freezing orders against D2 and D3, who had no assets or residence in England and where enforcement was impracticable and likely to cause conflict with Turkish courts. The orders against D1 and D4, who had assets and/or residence in England, were properly...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Motorola Credit Corporation; Appellant: Cem Cengiz Uzan; Appellant: Kemal Uzan; Appellant: Murat Hakan Uzan; Appellant: Aysegul Akay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeals and Applications for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Appeals of D2 and D3 allowed; worldwide freezing orders and committal orders against them set aside. Appeals of D1 and D4 dismissed; freezing and committal orders against them upheld. Findings of contempt against all defendants stand, but sentences for D2 and D3 to be reconsidered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Comity, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Contempt of Court, Cross Examination Orders
Civil Procedure Private International Law Freezing Injunctions Comity Jurisdiction Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Contempt of Court Cross Examination Orders

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motorola Credit Corporation

Respondent

Cem Cengiz Uzan

Appellant

Kemal Uzan

Appellant

Murat Hakan Uzan

Appellant

Aysegul Akay

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeals and Applications for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should grant or maintain worldwide freezing orders under s.25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of foreign proceedings where the defendants are not resident or domiciled in England and have no substantial connection with the jurisdiction;
  2. 2 Whether orders for cross-examination and findings of contempt should stand where the underlying freezing orders are set aside;
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of abuse of process or issue estoppel precludes re-litigation of issues decided in foreign interlocutory proceedings;

Ratio Decidendi

It was inexpedient for the English court to maintain worldwide freezing orders against D2 and D3, who had no assets or residence in England and where enforcement was impracticable and likely to cause conflict with Turkish courts. The orders against D1 and D4, who had assets and/or residence in England, were properly made and should stand. Findings of contempt against D2 and D3 remain, but their committal orders are set aside as the underlying freezing orders are discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeals of D2 and D3 allowed; worldwide freezing orders and committal orders against them set aside. Appeals of D1 and D4 dismissed; freezing and committal orders against them upheld. Findings of contempt against all defendants stand, but sentences for D2 and D3 to be reconsidered.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing orders against D2 and D3 discharged.
  • Committal orders for D2 and D3 set aside; findings of contempt remain, penalty to be determined.