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 Swiss assets, the assets and defendant were located in Switzerland, the Swiss courts had already refused similar protective measures, and considerations of comity and forum appropriateness dictated that the Swiss courts should determine asset protection. Additionally, the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure to the English court when seeking the injunction.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1287 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Robert MacKew; Defendant: David Basil Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing Injunction (mareva) / Hearing on Application to Discharge Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Freezing injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Parallel Proceedings, Asset Dissipation, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications
Civil Procedure Private International Law Freezing Injunctions Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention Parallel Proceedings Asset Dissipation 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 6 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) / Hearing on Application to Discharge Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should continue a worldwide freezing injunction against the defendant's Swiss assets
  2. 2 Whether the Swiss or English court was first seised under the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying an 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 Swiss assets, the assets and defendant were located in Switzerland, the Swiss courts had already refused similar protective measures, and considerations of comity and forum appropriateness dictated that the Swiss courts should determine asset protection. Additionally, the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure to the English court when seeking the injunction.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction discharged

Orders

  • The freezing order made by Maddison J is discharged.