Belletti & Ors v Morici & Ors

Belletti & Ors v Morici & Ors

The English court lacked territorial jurisdiction to grant freezing orders against the parents under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as there was no real connecting link between the parents or the assets and England, and it was inexpedient to grant such relief. Permission to serve out should not have been granted, and the orders must be set aside.

Parties
Claimant: Dario Belletti; Claimant: Donato Loscalzo; Claimant: Piero Minotti; Claimant: Francesco Gianni; Defendant: Pierantonio Morici; Defendant: BKV Invest Limited; Defendant: Bradshaw Global Corporation; Defendant: Jugular Limited; Defendant: Antonio Umberto Morici; Defendant: Filomena Zanenga Morici
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Freezing Orders and Service Out Orders
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Territorial Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Material Non Disclosure, Chabra Orders, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure International Civil Litigation Freezing Injunctions Territorial Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Material Non Disclosure Chabra Orders Interim Relief

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

Parties

Dario Belletti

Claimant

Donato Loscalzo

Claimant

Piero Minotti

Claimant

Francesco Gianni

Claimant

Pierantonio Morici

Defendant

BKV Invest Limited

Defendant

Bradshaw Global Corporation

Defendant

Jugular Limited

Defendant

Antonio Umberto Morici

Defendant

Filomena Zanenga Morici

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Freezing Orders and Service Out Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has territorial jurisdiction to grant freezing orders against foreign third parties under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether it was expedient to grant such orders under section 25(2)
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimants justifying setting aside the orders

Ratio Decidendi

The English court lacked territorial jurisdiction to grant freezing orders against the parents under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as there was no real connecting link between the parents or the assets and England, and it was inexpedient to grant such relief. Permission to serve out should not have been granted, and the orders must be set aside.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Order of Andrew Smith J of 8 May 2009 set aside in its entirety
  • Permission to serve out on the parents under section 25 and Practice Direction B paragraph 3.1(5) revoked