E & Ors v M

E & Ors v M

The Defendant purged its contempt by providing the required affidavit of assets and an adequate apology. The WFO should not be discharged as the Claimant's delay was not sufficient to justify discharge, and the arrest of MV 'XYZ' abroad did not breach the undertaking as it was not an order of a similar nature to a WFO. The WFO should not be varied to include assets not legally or beneficially owned or controlled by the Defendant, and the counter-security should not be released as potential claims for loss remain possible.

Parties
Claimant: F; Defendant: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Post Interim Orders; Applications to Discharge, Vary, or Enforce Freezing Order
Outcome
Defendant declared to have purged contempt; all other applications refused.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Order, Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Corporate Veil, Security for Costs
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Worldwide Freezing Order Contempt of Court Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Corporate Veil Security for Costs

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Claimant

M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Application / Post Interim Orders; Applications to Discharge, Vary, or Enforce Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has purged its contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) should be discharged
  3. 3 Whether the WFO should be varied to include certain assets (the Securities)

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant purged its contempt by providing the required affidavit of assets and an adequate apology. The WFO should not be discharged as the Claimant's delay was not sufficient to justify discharge, and the arrest of MV 'XYZ' abroad did not breach the undertaking as it was not an order of a similar nature to a WFO. The WFO should not be varied to include assets not legally or beneficially owned or controlled by the Defendant, and the counter-security should not be released as potential claims for loss remain possible.

Court Disposition

Defendant declared to have purged contempt; all other applications refused.

Orders

  • Declaration that Defendant has purged its contempt.
  • Defendant's application to discharge the WFO refused.