Goldtron Ltd v Most Investment Ltd [2002] JRC 148 (09 August 2002)

Goldtron Ltd v Most Investment Ltd [2002] JRC 148 (09 August 2002)

The plaintiff failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure by not drawing the court's attention to serious procedural challenges to the arbitration award and the existence of a dissenting opinion, which were material to the application for ex parte relief. However, given the post-award context, the absence of evidence from the defendant about its financial position or hardship, and the risk of dissipation of assets, the court exercised its discretion to re-impose the injunctions despite the non-disclosure, but ordered the plaintiff to pay indemnity costs.

Citation
[2002] JRC 148
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (name not specified); Defendant: Defendant (name not specified)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Mareva Injunctions / Post Award, Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Injunctions
Outcome
Injunctions re-imposed; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Post Judgment Relief, Duty of Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications
Civil Procedure Arbitration Injunctions Mareva Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Post Judgment Relief Duty of Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (name not specified)

Plaintiff

Defendant (name not specified)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Mareva Injunctions / Post Award, Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining ex parte Mareva injunctions
  2. 2 Whether the injunctions should be discharged for non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the injunctions should be re-imposed post-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure by not drawing the court's attention to serious procedural challenges to the arbitration award and the existence of a dissenting opinion, which were material to the application for ex parte relief. However, given the post-award context, the absence of evidence from the defendant about its financial position or hardship, and the risk of dissipation of assets, the court exercised its discretion to re-impose the injunctions despite the non-disclosure, but ordered the plaintiff to pay indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Injunctions re-imposed; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Injunctions contained at paragraphs 1-5 of the Order of Justice re-imposed.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of and incidental to the application on an indemnity basis.