Albion Energy Limited v Energy Investments Global Limited and Heritage Oil Limited [2020] JRC 160 (10 August 2020)

Albion Energy Limited v Energy Investments Global Limited and Heritage Oil Limited [2020] JRC 160 (10 August 2020)

The Practice Direction 15/04 did not strictly apply because the order sought was for the preservation of specific shares in which the Plaintiff claimed a proprietary interest under a Security Interest Agreement, not a general freezing of assets. The Plaintiff demonstrated a real and not fanciful risk of dissipation, justifying the continuation of the interim injunction.

Citation
[2020] JRC 160
Parties
Plaintiff: AEL; First Defendant: EIGL; Second Defendant: HOL
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Application to Discharge or Vary Interim Injunction
Outcome
Defendants' application to discharge the interim injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freezing Orders, Property Preservation, Practice Direction Compliance, Security Interest Agreement, Risk of Dissipation
Civil Procedure Injunctions Property Law Interim Injunctions Freezing Orders Property Preservation Practice Direction Compliance Security Interest Agreement +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AEL

Plaintiff

EIGL

First Defendant

HOL

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Application to Discharge or Vary Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Practice Direction 15/04 applies to a property preservation order over specific shares
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff demonstrated a real risk of dissipation justifying the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the interim injunction was too wide in scope

Ratio Decidendi

The Practice Direction 15/04 did not strictly apply because the order sought was for the preservation of specific shares in which the Plaintiff claimed a proprietary interest under a Security Interest Agreement, not a general freezing of assets. The Plaintiff demonstrated a real and not fanciful risk of dissipation, justifying the continuation of the interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to discharge the interim injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • Interim injunction maintained; Defendants' summons dismissed.