Mackew v Moore [2012] EWHC 1287 (QB) (17 May 2012)

Mackew v Moore [2012] EWHC 1287 (QB) (17 May 2012)

The English court discharged the freezing injunction because the claimant failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets, the assets and defendant were located in Switzerland, the Swiss courts had already refused similar protective measures, and considerations of comity and the absence of a territorial connection made it inappropriate for the English court to intervene. Additionally, there was material non-disclosure by the claimant in failing to inform the court of the Swiss proceedings and the defendant's address.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1287
Parties
Claimant: Robert MacKew; Defendant: David Basil Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing Injunction (mareva Injunction) in Civil Debt Claim / Hearing of Application to Discharge Interim Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Parallel Proceedings, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications
Civil Procedure Private International Law Freezing Injunctions Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention Parallel Proceedings Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert MacKew

Claimant

David Basil Moore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Freezing Injunction (mareva Injunction) in Civil Debt Claim / Hearing of Application to Discharge Interim Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should continue a freezing injunction against a defendant resident in Switzerland where parallel proceedings are ongoing in Switzerland
  2. 2 Whether the Swiss or English court was first seised under the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying a freezing injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The English court discharged the freezing injunction because the claimant failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets, the assets and defendant were located in Switzerland, the Swiss courts had already refused similar protective measures, and considerations of comity and the absence of a territorial connection made it inappropriate for the English court to intervene. Additionally, there was material non-disclosure by the claimant in failing to inform the court of the Swiss proceedings and the defendant's address.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged

Orders

  • The freezing order made by Maddison J is discharged.