Going head to head

Incompatible judgments on the same day have led to confusion over the scope of standard wording, says David Sandy

If a respondent subject to a freezing order in standard terms arranges for the disposal of assets of a company he owns and controls, is the respondent in breach of the freezing order?

In Group Seven Limited v Allied Investment Corporation Limited and Others [2013] EWHC 1509 (Ch) Hildyard J decided that such a respondent would not be in breach of the freezing order. In Lakatamia Shipping Company v Nobu Su and Others [2013] EWHC 1814 (Comm), Burton J decided that the respondent would be in breach of the freezing order. Both judgments were handed down on the same day, 6 June 2013.

Who is right? And if Hildyard J is right, what steps can be taken to ensure that a freezing order does extend to catch assets held by a company controlled and owned by the respondent?

It is perhaps surprising that this issue has not come up for decision before, but this may be because practitioners have previously taken the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Going head to head

Incompatible judgments on the same day have led to confusion over the scope of standard wording, says David Sandy

If a respondent subject to a freezing order in standard terms arranges for the disposal of assets of a company he owns and controls, is the respondent in breach of the freezing order?

Who is right? And if Hildyard J is right, what steps can be taken to ensure that a freezing order does extend to catch assets held by a company controlled and owned by the respondent?

It is perhaps surprising that this issue has not come up for decision before, but this may be because practitioners have previously taken the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

Error message

Going head to head

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven