Freezing Orders: Another Cautionary Tale

An ex parte application places a weighty burden upon the court hearing it. This is why the applicant has a duty to make full and frank disclosure of material which both assists and/or hinders their case. Courts are understandably more comfortable when all parties are represented and able to put their case forward robustly and fairly. That said, two recent judgments in Sheyko v Consolidated Minerals Limited demonstrate that it is not just ex parte applicants who have a duty to place all relevant material before the court – and that the consequences of failure can be severe.

In Sheyko v Consolidated Minerals Limited [2018] JRC 236, the facts were as follows: on 17 July 2018 the Plaintiff obtained a freezing order preventing the Defendant from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of assets in Jersey up to a value of US$10 million ("the Frozen Sum"). The freezing order did not require the fortification of the Plaintiff's undertaking in damages