Offshore Litigation Blog

In the recent case of J&J Snack Foods Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd, the English Court discharged a freezing injunction and an access and imaging order due to multiple and serious failures by the Claimants to adhere to their duty of full and frank disclosure and fair presentation. The Court also saw insufficient grounds for re-granting any freezing injunction. This decision highlights the fundamental responsibility of an applicant seeking an ex parte injunction to put matters fairly to the Court, including articulating any anticipated defences and addressing any weaknesses in the applicant’s own case properly.

In the recent case of SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Ltd, the English Commercial Court ruled on the appropriate sanction to be imposed on an individual respondent, who had been found guilty of contempt of court for failure to comply with several provisions of a freezing order.

In Dos Santos v Unitel SA, the English Court of Appeal clarified the threshold test of a “good arguable case” for granting worldwide freezing injunctions should be equivalent to that of a “serious issue to be tried” as applied in other types of interim injunctions, in accordance with the principles laid down in American Cyanamid.

In the recent Hong Kong case of Friendship Shipping and Trading SA v IVL Dhunseri Polyester Company SAE, the Plaintiff applied for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain the Defendant from continuing Egyptian legal proceedings against it, contending that the parties had agreed to arbitrate any dispute in Hong Kong per the arbitration agreement contained in a charterparty that was incorporated by reference in the bills of lading.

We cover 11 key questions we’ve been asked on how to get an injunction in the BVI. Find our top 11 questions here.

In Mex Group Worldwide Ltd v Ford (Mex Group) the English Court of Appeal considered an appeal against a decision to set aside a worldwide freezing order, originally granted under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Section 25), sought in aid of proceedings before the Scottish Court relating to conspiracy claims.

It is well established that the main purpose of an asset disclosure order is to police a freezing injunction or, in other words, to ensure the continued effectiveness of the freezing order. In a recent decision concerning a summons for disclosure of information, the Cayman Islands Court provided a helpful summary on the applicable law that governs asset disclosure orders within the context of a worldwide freezing order, as well as the nature and justifiable extent to which disclosure of relevant assets can be sought.

The Cayman Islands Grand Court has recently dismissed an application to (i) discharge service and (ii) set aside a worldwide freezing order (WFO) in the case of The Family (Global Godfathers) SPC et al -v- Ammar et al (Unrep, Grand Court, 6 August 2024). This blog will focus on why Parker J dismissed the set aside application.

It is widely accepted in the BVI, Cayman Islands and Bermuda courts, as well as other common law jurisdictions, that an asset disclosure order is an ancillary order which gives a freezing injunction “its teeth” and the purpose for which they are made is to police that freezing order. But how is the court persuaded to bite?