The defendants sought to discharge a worldwide freezing order
("WFO") made against them on various grounds, including
the following:
(1) The court had no jurisdiction over most of the underlying
claims, and the rest should have been stayed for arbitration.
Although the judge agreed with that, save in respect for a small
part of some of the claims, he reserved judgment as to whether that
would be a sufficient ground to discharge the WFO (until after an
application for a case management stay had been determined).
(2) There had been a material non-disclosure when the applicant
applied for the WFO. Popplewell J noted that "although the
principle is often expressed in terms of a duty of disclosure, the
ultimate touchstone is whether the presentation of the application
is fair in all material respects". So, in a complex,
document-heavy case, it is not enough "if disclosure is made
in some part of the material, even if amongst that which the judge
is invited to read, if
