Freezing Injunctions - SCF Tankers (Formerly Fiona Trust) V Privalov

Court of Appeal holds that judge did not err in assessing damages where a freezing injunction should not have been granted

The substantive claims brought by the claimant against the defendant failed (on the whole), despite the defendant having been found to have acted dishonestly. The claimant had obtained freezing orders against the defendant and he sought enforcement of the usual undertaking in damages which had been provided by the claimant. The main issue in the proceedings was whether the defendant was entitled to damages on the basis that he would have used the frozen funds to build new ships which would have resulted in a profit. Males J held that, adopting a liberal approach to the assessment of the defendant's damages, the defendant was entitled to damages of USD 60 million plus USD 11 million interest (the freezing order having been in place for just 19 days). The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal from that decision.