Securities and Investments Board v LLoyd-Wright and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1993 |
| Date | 11 May 1993 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Before Mr Justice Morritt
Financial services - compensation - Mareva injunction - cross-undertaking by SIB
The Securities and Investment Board, in seeking a remedy provided by the secretary of state for the benefit of the public at large or those who had suffered from the infringement of the Financial Services Act 1986, was not obliged to give a cross-undertaking in damages in respect of a Mareva (asset freezing) injunction granted in its favour to support claims for restitution and compensation against defendants alleged to have infringed the 1986 Act.
Mr Justice Morritt so held in the Chancery Division on a motion by the SIB against two defendants, Mr Ian Francis Lloyd-Wright and L W Investment Corporation, when it was agreed between the parties that injunctive relief should be granted pending evidence being put in by the defendants and a further inter partes hearing on or after June 8.
Mr Christopher Pymont for the plaintiff; Mr Mark Pelling for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE MORRITT said that the SIB sought to restrain the defendants under section 3 of the 1986 Act from carrying on unauthorised investment business in the United Kingdom, under section 47 from making statements or forecasts which were misleading and under section 56 from making unsolicited calls on persons within the United Kingdom.
The sections were enforceable by injunctions pursuant to sections 6 and 61 which entitled the secretary of state to apply for an injunction and those powers had been delegated by him to the SIB.
Mr Pelling accepted that with regard to those three injunctions the SIB had a statutory law enforcement function and, consistent with Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and IndustryELR ((1975) AC 295) andKirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies LtdTLRWLR (The Times June 29, 1992; (1992) 3 WLR 170) there should not be a cross-undertaking for damages.
But he claimed that a further worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants was draconian in its nature and was not strictly law enforcement within Lord Devlin's definition in the Hoffmann-La Roche case quoted by Lord Goff of Chievely in the Kirklees case (at p180F).
His Lordship said that sections 6 and 61 conferred, in addition to the ability to apply for an injunction, the jurisdiction to make monetary judgments either to provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Devine
...THE SUPREME COURTS CASE-SELECTION PROCESS 2009 119 YALE LJ 77 SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS BOARD v LLOYD-WRIGHT & ANOR 1993 4 AER 210 1994 1 BCLC 147 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE Ex parte application Undertaking as to damages - Interim application - Mutual assistance - Restraint order -Whether State ap......
-
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v Manterfield
...the instant case. That is inconsistent with Morritt J's reasoning and I would reject that argument. He submitted in the alternative that Lloyd-Wright should be overruled. I would also reject that submission. Not only does the case seem to me to be rightly decided but it has the support of N......
-
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v Manterfield
... ... Securities and Investments Board v Lloyd-Wright [ 1993 ] 4 All ER 210 and Customs and Excise Comrs ... the tax or penal o›ence by one state within the territory of another: see para 5 ... 020 of Dicey and the authorities there referred to ... ...
-
R (on the application of SL) v Westminster City Council
...of law enforcer in the public interest." 34 The next relevant case in point of time is the decision of Morritt J in Securities and Investments Board v Lloyd-Wright [1993] 4 All ER 210. In terms of subject-matter, this is much closer to the present case. It was an application by the Securit......
-
Civil Enforcement as a Regulatory Device — An Analysis of Administrative and Civil Enforcement under the Financial Services Act 1986
...is difficult to justify. see further, Zuckerman [1994] CLJ 546, at pp. 568-571. (63) See further, Lomnicka [ 1989] JBL 423. (64) [1993] 4 All ER 210. (65) [1976] Ch. 204. (66) See above, ref. 26 at p. 61. (67) [1989] 1 WLR 778. (68) See Money Marketing, 14th July, 1989. (69) See, for exampl......
-
Civil Remedies in Law Enforcement: The Planning Experience
...State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295. (18) Kirklees Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd [1992] 3 All ER 717, HL. (19) [1994] 1 BCLC 147. (20) DoE (1995) 'Evaluation of Planning Enforcement Provisions'. This compares with 13,324 enforcement notices and 2,083 breach of condit......
-
SELECTED CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE
...in damages ‘as the price for obtaining [the worldwide injunction]’, see Securities and Investments Board v Lloyd-Wright[1993] 4 All ER 210. 124 [1994] 1 SLR 463. 125 The subsidiary proprietor had converted metal grills to sliding windows. 126 [1975] 2 CCH Strata Title Law & Practice 50. 127......
-
Injunctive and Restitutory Remedies of the Securities and Investments Board
...Associates NV [1991] BCLC 206. (4) Per Morritt J, Securities and Investments Board v Lloyd Wright, The Times, 23rd June, 1993, [1994] 1 BCLC 147. (5) [1993] Ch 256, CA; [1991] 1 WLR 857. (6) Section 61(1). (7) SIB v Pantell (No 2). (8) SIB v Pantell (No. 1) [1990] Ch. 426. (9) SIB v Lloyd-W......