Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BROWNE,LORD JUSTICE GEOFFREY LANE |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0522-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 May 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0522-4
The Waster of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Browne and
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Exparte application by Nippon Yusen Kaisha.
Mr. G. BRICE (instructed by Messrs. Middleton Lewis & Co.) appeared on behalf of Nippon Yusen Kaisha.
There was no other appearance.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: The big shipowners of Japan, Nippon Yusen Kaisha, entered into charterparties with two gentlemen, Mr. George Karageorgis and Mr. John Karageorgis. Three ships were let on charter to those two gentlemen, one on a voyage charter and two on time charters. The hire, of course, was payable by the charterers. The charterers relied on good contracts by law with Peru. But unfortunately things have not gone as was anticipated. Mr. George Karageorgis and Mr. John Karageorgis have not paid the charterparty hire. They said that they transmitted it to New York, but the money has never been received. Attempts to find the two Messrs. Karageorgis have not succeeded. It is said their office In the Piraeus is closed, but the plaintiffs believe, and rightly believe, that they have funds with banks here in London. The plaintiffs fear that the moneys in those banks may be transmitted out of the jurisdiction unless something is done to retain them here. So they apply for an interim injunction against Mr. George Karageorgis and Mr. John Karageorgis to restrain them from disposing or removing any of their assets which are in this jurisdiction outside it.
We are told that an injunction of this kind has never been done before. It has never been the practice of the English Courts to seize assets of a defendant in advance of judgment, or to restrain the disposal of them. We were told that Mr. Justice Chapman in chambers recently refused such an application. In this case also Mr. Justice Donaldson refused. We know, of course, that the practice on the Continent of Europe is different.
It seems to me that the time has come when we should revise our practice. There is no reason why the High Court or this Court should not make an order such as is asked for here. It is warranted by section 45 of the Judicature Act 1925 which says the High Court may grant a mandamus or injunction or appoint areceiver by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rasu Maritima S.A. v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (Government of the Republic of Indonesia intervening)
...THE LAW. 26The case raises directly the correctness of two decisions recently given by this court. The first is the case of Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. G. & J. Karageorgis (1975) 2 Lloyd's Reports 137 and the second is the case of Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulk Carriers S.A. ......
- Century Hotel Sdn Bhd; Zainal Abidin bin Haji Abdul Rahman
-
Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine S.A.; Aggelikai Ptera Compania Maritima S.A. v Unimarine S.A.; Western Sealanes Corporation v Unimarine S.A. (Angelic Wings, Genie, Pythia)
...itself being triable within the jurisdiction. The first of the reported cases, Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. G. and J. Karageorsis (1975) 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 137, was one in which there was good reason for thinking that the defendants, if unsuccessful as they probably would be, would default in ......
-
Shoucair, Rudolph v Kevin Tucker-Brown et Al
...the issue was raised I will deal with it. 22 The United Kingdom 23 I will now examine some of the cases. In the case of Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis and another [1975] 3 All ER 282 the claimants sued the defendants who had hired ships from them. The defendants did not pay the hire as ......
-
Fla. Ruling Opens Door To Foreign Asset Freeze Enforcement
...[1] Gorsoan Ltd. v. Bullock, 2020-020803-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 17, 2021), Dkt. No. 44. [2] Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis , [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 137 (C.A.). [3] Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc. , 527 U.S. 308, 332 (1999). [4] Rasu Maritima SA v. Perusahaan ......
-
Cross‐border asset protection: an offshore perspective
...Law and Comparative Law',Hague Conference on Private International Law, Enforce-ment of Judgments, Doc. 10, October 1998.(8) [1975] 1 WLR 1093, CA. The case was heard a month beforeThe Mareva, which lends its name to this type of relief.(9) (1890) 45 ChD 1.(10) Ibid. at p. 13.(11) Section 4......
-
THE LAW WANTS TO BE FORMAL.
...Compariia Naviera SA v. Int'l Bulkcarriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213 (AC) at 215 (Lord Denning MR); Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis [1975] 3 All ER 282 (AC) at 283 (Lord Denning MR). The result was later confirmed by a formal rule. See Civ. P. R. 25.1(0 (1998) (UK) (authorizing freezing (17......
-
Pre-emptive Remedies in Commercial Litigation by Heather Mahon
...of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1980] 1 All ER 213; [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 137. his topic is discussed in depth in Heather Mahon, Pre-emptive Remedies in Commercial Litigation (Round Hall – homson Reuters 2019) ch 2. 6 K......
-
Mareva Injunctions and Third Parties: Exposing the Subtext
...The early Mareva cases assumed that notice to such parties was sufficient to achieve compliance:Nippon Yusen Kaisha vKarageorgis [1975] 3 All ER 282, 283; Chartered Bank vDaklouche note10 above, 210; Rhaman (Prince Abdul) bin Turki al Sudairy vAbu-Taha [1980] 1 WLR 1268,1273.121 See ‘Assets......