Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 NOVEMBER 2017

ICICI Bank UK PLC v Mehta & Ors [2017] EWHC

Whether delay fatal to application for a freezing injunction and requirements for an "anchor defendant"

GlobalLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Whether delay fatal to application for a freezing injunction and requirements for an "anchor defendant"

Various issues arose in this case regarding the continuation of worldwide freezing orders against the defendants. One of the issues was whether delay by the applicant was fatal to the application. The respondent had received a formal demand threatening asset seizure in July 2016 and was notified that a claim form had been issued against her in August 2016, but no application for a freezing order was made in England for a further 7 months (settlement discussions having taken place during this time). HHJ Waksman QC noted that delay alone will not usually prevent the grant of a freezing order if the court is satisfied that there is still a real risk of dissipation. However, on the facts, the judge found that a risk of dissipation could not be proven "on the simple basis that if Mona did really pose such a risk, or the Bank thought that she did, it is somewhat odd that

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from