Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd. v Compagnie Internationale de Navigation & Ors [2001] EWHC 495 (Comm) (23 January 2001)

Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd. v Compagnie Internationale de Navigation & Ors [2001] EWHC 495 (Comm) (23 January 2001)

The court declined to make the garnishee order absolute because the debt was situated in Hong Kong, and the applicant failed to discharge the burden of showing there was no real risk of double jeopardy for the garnishee, given the unchallenged evidence that Hong Kong law would not recognise the English order as discharging the debt.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 495 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant: Judgment Creditor; Respondent: First Judgment Debtor; Respondent: Second Judgment Debtor; Respondent: Third Judgment Debtor; Garnishee: Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (the Garnishee)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Garnishee Proceedings / Application to Make Garnishee Order Absolute
Outcome
Application to make garnishee order absolute refused; garnishee order to show cause set aside.
Legal Topics
Garnishee Orders, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Double Jeopardy in Debt Enforcement, Jurisdiction Over Foreign Debts
Civil Procedure Private International Law Banking Law Garnishee Orders Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Double Jeopardy in Debt Enforcement Jurisdiction Over Foreign Debts

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judgment Creditor

Applicant

First Judgment Debtor

Respondent

Second Judgment Debtor

Respondent

Third Judgment Debtor

Respondent

Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (the Garnishee)

Garnishee

Procedural Posture

Garnishee Proceedings / Application to Make Garnishee Order Absolute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a garnishee order can be made absolute against a foreign bank in respect of a debt due on a foreign bank account
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of double jeopardy for the garnishee if the order is made absolute
  3. 3 On whom lies the burden of proof regarding the risk of double jeopardy in garnishee proceedings involving foreign debts

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to make the garnishee order absolute because the debt was situated in Hong Kong, and the applicant failed to discharge the burden of showing there was no real risk of double jeopardy for the garnishee, given the unchallenged evidence that Hong Kong law would not recognise the English order as discharging the debt.

Court Disposition

Application to make garnishee order absolute refused; garnishee order to show cause set aside.

Orders

  • Garnishee order to show cause set aside.
  • No order absolute made against the garnishee.