Ryan v Friction Dynamics Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 2000 |
| Date | 02 June 2000 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Before Mr Justice Neuberger
Practice and asset-freezing order ancillary to foreign proceedings - general principles
The court should pay heed to several general principles when granting an asset-freezing order ancillary to proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
Mr Justice Neuberger so stated in the Chancery Division when varying an injunction granted to the claimants, Laureen Ryan and Raytech Corporation, against the defendants, Friction Dynamics Ltd, Ferotec Ltd and Ferotec Realty Ltd.
Mr Stephen Smith, QC, for the claimants; Mr Ian Mill, QC, for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE NEUBERGER said that the following general principles applied when the court was asked to exercise its jurisdiction under section 25 of the 1982 Act:
1 The court should always exercise caution before granting any freezing order.
2 As Lord Justice Millett emphasised in Credit Suisse Fides Trust v CuoghiELR ((1998) QB 818) particular caution was required when a freezing order was sought under section 25.
The fact that the primary forum for the litigation was abroad meant that the court was likely to be even less fully appraised of the facts than in a case where it was exercising primary jurisdiction: see Refco Inc v Eastern Trading Co ((1999) 1 Ll LR 159, 164).
3 However, factors such as comity and the need to stop international fraud meant that the High Court should not be too worried about granting an injunction under section 25 where it was satisfied that good grounds existed.
As was pointed out in Cuoghi, section 25(2) indicated that an order should be made unless it was inexpedient to do so.
4 Just as when exercising its primary jurisdiction to grant a freezing order, the court should not make an order under section 25 unless the basic requirements were satisfied, namely that the claimant had a good arguable case and that there was a real risk of dissipation: see Refco (at pp164 and 171).
5 Although it should be slow to do so, it might be appropriate for the High Court to grant a freezing order even where the foreign court had refused to grant an order.
6 The fact that there was a world- wide freezing order granted by the principal foreign court did not prevent the High Court from granting a freezing order at least in relation to British assets and/or against defendants resident or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GFH Capital Ltd v David Laurence Haigh
...principles applicable to the grant of a freezing order here pursuant to the 1982 Act were set out by Neuberger J, in the case of Ryan v Friction Dynamics Limited [2001] CP Reports 75. In that judgment, Neuberger J referred to the case of Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi [1998] QB 818, ......
-
IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
...v. Butt [1987] 3 All ER 657; Barrow v. Bankside Agency Ltd [1996] 1WLR 257; Rosling v. Pinnegar C.A., October 1998, unreported; Ryan v. Friction Dynamics Ltd [2001] C.P.R. Rep 75; The Leadmill Ltd v. Omare [2002] EWHC 1226 (Ch); Lloyds v. Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch); Collier v. Willi......
-
IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
...v. Butt [1987] 3 All ER 657; Barrow v. Bankside Agency Ltd [1996] 1WLR 257; Rosling v. Pinnegar C.A., October 1998, unreported; Ryan v. Friction Dynamics Ltd [2001] C.P.R. Rep 75; The Leadmill Ltd v. Omare [2002] EWHC 1226 (Ch); Lloyds v. Ager-Hanssen [2003] EWHC 1740 (Ch); Collier v. Wil......
-
The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v 1) Fal Oil Company Ltd and Others
...of the proceedings in question makes it inexpedient for the court to grant it." As Neuberger J (as he then was) stated in Ryan v Friction Dynamics [2001] CP Rep 75 the section confers "a statutory jurisdiction which on its face appears to be intended to give a wide and flexible discretion.......