Munib Masri (Applicant/Judgment Creditor) v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL and Others (First and Second) (Respondents/Judgment Debtors) (Third Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Christopher Clarke |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2004 FOLIO 124 AND 831 |
| Date | 05 May 2011 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
54 cases
-
Super Max Offshore Holdings v Rakesh Malhotra
...interplay between the English court and foreign law in similar circumstances: Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) at [244–61] per Christopher Clarke J and Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd V Systems Equipment Telecommunications Services SAL [2020] ......
-
Marie-Therese Elisabeth Helene Hohenberg Bailey v Anthony John Bailey
...breach of the order and (iii) have known of the facts which made his/her conduct a breach (see Masri v Consolidated Contractors Ltd [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm). 29 If it be the case that applicant cannot prove that the defendant was able to comply with the order, then s/he is not in contempt o......
-
ADM International SARL v Grain House International S.A. (Formerly known as Compagnie Agricole De Commercialisation Et De Conditionnement Des Cereales Et De Legumeineuses S.A.)
...with principles which are helpfully summarised by Christopher Clarke J in Masri v Consolidated Contractors Intl Co SAL & Ors [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) at [144]–[147]. Third parties who have notice of a court order may also be guilty of contempt if they do something which is a wilful interfer......
-
Nebahat Evyap Isbilen v Selman Turk
...cases. Mr Counsell also referred to the judgment of Christopher Clarke J in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) in which the judge said at [150]: “In order to establish that someone is in contempt it is necessary to show that (i) that he knew of th......
Request a trial to view additional results