Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2498 (Comm) (13 July 2017)

Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2498 (Comm) (13 July 2017)

It is appropriate to remove the 'Angel Bell' exception from the freezing order because the defendant has a binding judgment and arbitral award against it, has assets to pay, has persistently resisted enforcement, and there is a continuing risk of dissipation. The exception is not justified post-judgment unless it aids execution, which is not the case here. The court will not order transfer of funds from New Zealand, as enforcement there is a matter for the New Zealand courts.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2498 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: John Forster Emmott; Defendant: Michael Wilson & Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (post Arbitration Enforcement and Injunctive Relief) / Application to Amend Freezing Order and Related Reliefs
Outcome
Application to remove 'Angel Bell' exception granted; application to order transfer of New Zealand funds refused; applications for declarations of estoppel and injunction not determined.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Post Judgment Remedies, Cause of Action Estoppel, Issue Estoppel
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Post Judgment Remedies Cause of Action Estoppel Issue Estoppel

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Forster Emmott

Claimant

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (post Arbitration Enforcement and Injunctive Relief) / Application to Amend Freezing Order and Related Reliefs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'Angel Bell' exception (ordinary course of business expenditure) should be removed from the post-judgment freezing order against the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the court should order transfer of funds held in New Zealand into the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether declarations of res judicata, cause of action estoppel, or issue estoppel should be granted on this application

Ratio Decidendi

It is appropriate to remove the 'Angel Bell' exception from the freezing order because the defendant has a binding judgment and arbitral award against it, has assets to pay, has persistently resisted enforcement, and there is a continuing risk of dissipation. The exception is not justified post-judgment unless it aids execution, which is not the case here. The court will not order transfer of funds from New Zealand, as enforcement there is a matter for the New Zealand courts.

Court Disposition

Application to remove 'Angel Bell' exception granted; application to order transfer of New Zealand funds refused; applications for declarations of estoppel and injunction not determined.

Orders

  • 'Angel Bell' exception removed from the freezing order against the defendant.
  • No order for transfer of funds from New Zealand to England.