LAX SA v JBC SA

LAX SA v JBC SA

JBC SA failed to establish a good arguable case of loss or provide material for an intelligent estimate of loss, but LAX SA's inability to provide fortification justifies asset disclosure as a condition for maintaining the freezing order.

Parties
Claimant: LAX SA; Defendant: JBC SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Post Injunction, Application to Vary Injunction
Outcome
Application to require fortification refused; asset disclosure ordered as condition for maintaining freezing order.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Undertaking in Damages, Fortification, Jurisdictional Asset Requirements

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAX SA

Claimant

JBC SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Post Injunction, Application to Vary Injunction

  1. 1 Whether LAX SA should be required to provide fortification for its cross-undertaking in damages
  2. 2 Whether LAX SA should be required to disclose assets as a condition for maintaining the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether JBC SA established a good arguable case of loss warranting fortification

Ratio Decidendi

JBC SA failed to establish a good arguable case of loss or provide material for an intelligent estimate of loss, but LAX SA's inability to provide fortification justifies asset disclosure as a condition for maintaining the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Application to require fortification refused; asset disclosure ordered as condition for maintaining freezing order.

Orders

  • LAX SA must provide disclosure of worldwide assets exceeding US$10,000 in value.
  • Disclosure capped at cumulative unencumbered equity interest of US$1 million.