Download Understanding Injunctive Relief & Interim Orders: Without Notice & Asset Freezing Focus and more Lecture notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!
URGENT INJUNCTION APPLICATIONS: BEST PRACTICE AND PITFALLS
TO AVOID
INTRODUCTION
- Pre-emptive relief may often be determinative of the course of litigation; the effect of an early tactical advantage is frequently difficult to reverse. What follows is intended to help applicants and respondents:
(1) focus on the circumstances in which injunctive relief (particularly in the context of without notice applications) is genuinely appropriate; (2) highlight important aspects of the practice and procedure governing applications for interim injunctions; (3) understand the content of the duties on a without notice applicant and the consequences of breach; (4) consider in more detail the duty of full and frank disclosure; (5) examine the role of undertakings, or cross-undertakings, in damages; (6) understand some of the issues which arise on implementation and enforcement of the order.
- Just as early success may strengthen a claimant’s hand, the bloody nose of an unsuccessful application can have lasting consequences.
- A convenient starting point (and salutary lesson) for those advising a prospective applicant for urgent injunctive relief is the decision of Henderson J in Franses v Somar Al Assad and Ors [2007] EWHC 2442(Ch) where the court held a without notice freezing injunction obtained by a liquidator against a judgment creditor was:
(1) improperly made without notice; (2) suffered from “severe” procedural flaws; and (3) obtained against a backdrop of a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure in 2 respects.
- The cumulative effect of the deficiencies justified an award of costs against the liquidator applicant on the indemnity basis. The public criticism of the legal team involved was not probably particularly welcome either.
JURISDICTION
- The jurisdiction of the High Court to grant injunctions (and, more particularly, freezing injunctions) was the subject of recent review by the House of Lords in Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1; [2007] 1 WLR 320.
- The main speech was delivered by Lord Scott of Foscote, from which it is possible to extract the following propositions:
(1) the word “jurisdiction” is potentially ambiguous. In the strict sense, jurisdiction is a reference to the court’s power to grant the relevant relief. Sometimes, however, jurisdiction is used to describe the settled practice governing the exercise of the power; the High Court’s power to grant injunctions is derived from the pre- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 powers of the Chancery courts, a power now confirmed in s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 1 ;
(^1) Which provides (so far as is relevant):
(1) The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just to do so. (2) Any such order may be made either unconditionally or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just. (3) The power of the High Court under subsection (1) to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining a party to any proceedings from removing from the jurisdiction of the High Court, or otherwise dealing
(2) whether the jurisdiction has been properly exercised by a judge does not involve a review of discretion but an examination of the restrictions and limitations placed on the power by a combination of judicial precedent and rules of court;
(3) provided the court has in personam jurisdiction over the person against whom an injunction, whether interlocutory or final, is sought, the court has jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to grant it;
(4) as to the granting of interim relief in relation to proceedings that have been or about to be commenced in a foreign state, jurisdiction (in the strict sense) exists by virtue of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as extended by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Interim relief) Order 1997 (SI 1997/302);
(5) in suitable circumstances a freezing order^2 may be, and often is, granted and served on the respondent before substantive proceedings have been instituted. Such an order is valid and of immediate effect but if proceedings for substantive relief are not instituted, the freezing order may lapse in accordance with its own terms or, on an application by the respondent, may be discharged;
(6) no “activation” of the court’s jurisdiction to grant an injunction by issue of substantive proceedings is, therefore, needed;
(7) whenever an interlocutory injunction is applied for, the judge, if otherwise minded to make the order, should pay careful attention to the substantive relief that is, or will be, sought;
(8) in deciding whether, in the words of s 37 of the SCA 1981, it is “just and convenient” to grant an injunction, the court must have regard to the interests of the defendant as well as the claimant;
(9) it is very difficult to visualise a case where the grant of a freezing order, made without notice, could be said to be properly made in the absence of any formulation of the case for substantive relief that the applicant for the order intended to institute;
(10) at the least a draft claim form might be expected;
(11) the respondent to a without notice freezing injunction made without substantive proceedings having been started is entitled to the protection of directions about the institution of such proceedings.
- As to the power of a Master or District Judge sitting in the High Court to grant an interim injunction, see Practice Direction – Interim Injunctions , paras 1.1 to 1.4 3 & Civil Procedure (the White Book ), 2008, vol 1, at para 25.0.8. In cases of urgency in the mercantile court and a mercantile judge is unavailable, the application may be dealt with by another judge (including a district judge): see PD – Mercantile Courts and Business Lists , para 1.3 4.
- So far as county courts are concerned, s 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 confers a general power, subject to regulations, for a county court to make any order which could be made by the High Court of the proceedings were in the High Court.
with, assets located within that jurisdiction shall be exercisable in cases where that party is, as well as in cases where he is not, domiciled, resident or present within that jurisdiction. (4) … (5) …
(^2) And, by extrapolation, any other interim order. (^3) Reproduced in Civil Procedure (the White Book ), 2008, vol 1, at p 637. (^4) Reproduced in Civil Procedure , vol 2, p 396. But see also, para F15 of the Mercantile Court Guide for the Bristol Mercantile
Court.
what was sought to be enjoined between the time of the application and the time of trial: American Cyanamid at 408 C.
- If damages in the measure recoverable at common law would be an adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them , no interim injunction should normally be granted, however strong the claimant’s claim appeared to be at that stage (emphasis added): ibid at 408 C-D.
- If, on the other hand, damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the claimant in the event of his succeeding at trial, the court should then consider whether, on the contrary hypothesis that the defendant were to succeed at trial in establishing his right to do that which was sought to be enjoined, he would be adequately compensated under the claimant’s undertaking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by being prevented from doing so between the time of the application and the tome of the trial: ibid at 408 D.
- If damages in the measure recoverable under such an undertaking would be an adequate remedy and the claimant would be in a financial position to pay them, there would be no reason upon this ground to refuse an interim injunction: ibid at 408 E.
- It is where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective remedies in damages available to either party or both, that the question of balance of convenience arises: ibid at 408 F.
- The matters relevant to a determination of where the balance lies will vary from case to case: ibid.
- Where other factors are evenly balanced it is a counsel of prudence to take such measures as are calculated to preserve the status quo: ibid at 408 G.
FREEZING INJUNCTIONS
- An applicant for a freezing injunction must satisfy the court of:
(1) the existence of a legal or equitable right in support of which the injunction is sought;
(2) its jurisdiction in relation to that legal or equitable right;
(3) a good arguable case for the relief claimed (this is marginally higher than a serious issue to be tried 5 );
(4) the existence of assets (within or without the jurisdiction) within the legal or beneficial ownership of the respondent;
(5) a risk of dissipation;
(6) the applicant’s willingness to provide a cross-undertaking in damages (save in exceptional circumstances).
- An applicant’s cross-undertaking in damages is dealt with below.
- It is frequently the adequacy of evidence of a risk of dissipation that causes the court most anxiety. In Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petroleos De Venezuela SA [2008] EWHC 532; [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 684 Walker J said this (at paragraph 35) about the expression “dissipation of assets”:
The focus is on the conduct of the defendant as regards the defendant’s assets and the question is whether a particular course of conduct in relation to assets by the defendant,
(^5) See Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon [1990] Ch 48, at 57-58 per Nicholls LJ.
actual or feared, is conduct which should or may lead the court to conclude that the grant of a freezing order is just and convenient.
- Freezing orders are emphatically not granted as security for claims and by procuring such an order a claimant is not in any better position that any other actual or claimed creditor. It follows that the mere fact that a defendant’s creditworthiness is in doubt does not justify the making of a freezing order: ibid at para 36.
- The risk of dissipation must involve a risk of impairing the claimant’s ability to enforce a judgment or award. In the application of this principle it is not necessary for the claimant to prove that enforcement in England and Wales, rather than elsewhere will be impaired. Nor is it necessary for the claimant to prove that the purpose of the defendant’s actual or feared conduct is to frustrate the enforcement of any judgment which is obtained, provided that, objectively, that would be its effect: ibid at para 40.
- The risk of impairment does not, however, in every case mean a freezing injunction should be granted; the conduct relied upon must be unjustifiable by normal and proper commercial considerations: ibid at para 41.
- In Thane Investments Ltd v Tomlinson & ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1272 Peter Gibson LJ emphasised (at paragraph 21) the need for any application for a freezing injunction to be supported by " solid evidence...of the likelihood of dissipation ".
- Pointing to some dishonesty on the part of the intended respondent to the injunction is insufficient: Thane at para 28. The court will scrutinise with care whether what is alleged to have been the dishonesty of the person against whom the order is sought in itself really justifies the inference that that person has assets which he is likely to dissipate unless restricted ( ibid ).
- The court will be particularly interested in evidence of such things as a poor credit history, a record of defaulting on other debts or any threat to remove or otherwise deal with the relevant assets: ibid at para 26. The defendant’s proven links with another country to which he may decamp will also be highly relevant, as will any lack of openness on the part of the defendant in response to enquiries about his intentions in relation to assets being realised.
- Plainly, the more easily realised or moved the assets identified in the evidence may be, the easier it is to justify a risk of dissipation. Where there is evidence as to the form which the assets take which in itself indicates there has been no attempt to dissipate in the past and, by the nature of those assets, any such dissipation in the future is unlikely, then the court may take a different view. Moreover, the mere fact of asset realisation by a defendant is insufficient (at least where the application is not for a “proprietary” freezing order in which the claimant asserts that an asset held by the defendant is really his); there must, as noted above, be some basis for believing that the disposal of assets is unjustifiable: see, for example, Renewable Power & Light plc v Renewable Power & Light Services Inc & ors [2008] EWHC 1058 (Ch).
- Ultimately the test is not one of probability of dissipation, but of real risk: Caring Together Ltd v Bauso and ors [2006] EWHC 2345 (Ch) at para 64.
- Thane is not a judgment to the effect that allegations of dishonesty are insufficient to found the necessary inference of a real risk of dissipation, but a reminder that in order to draw the inference it is necessary to have regard to the particular allegations of dishonesty and to consider them with some care: Jarvis Field Press Ltd v Chelton [2003] EWHC 2674 (Ch) at para 10.
- There is or may be an appreciable risk in the case of somebody who appears to be guilty not merely of dishonesty, but dishonesty in financial dealings in relation to the use or misuse of assets, that he will take steps to put such assets outside the reach of the people claiming an entitlement thereto: Jarvis Field at para 17.
of concern (or apparent approval of the conduct subsequently challenged) or the respondent has otherwise been lulled into a false sense of security.
- Ultimately each case turns on its own facts and little is to be gained by seeking to divine from the authorities a maximum time within which any application must be made. In Raks Holdings AS v Ttpcom Ltd [2004] EWHC 2137 (Ch), however, Lloyd J, in refusing an interim injunction to restrain exploitation of allegedly confidential information disclosed to the defendant in the course of a commercial collaboration which had come to an end, considered a delay of 4 months 10 to be fatal; the lack or urgency showed that the claimant did not really fear irrevocable damage in the meantime such as would justify an injunction. See also AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd & ors v Pfizer Ltd & anr [2007] EWHC 565 (Ch) where delay was a “powerful factor” in the refusal of the claimants’ application for an interim injunction restraining Pfizer Ltd from terminating its supply agreements with the claimants in accordance with proposals published some months before. The fact that the claimants were pursuing their complaints with the OFT did not provide a good ground for not bringing the matter before the court at a much earlier stage.
- The making of an early application for interim relief is, however, not without its disadvantages for the claimant:
(1) it necessarily gives rise to some front-loading of costs as the evidence gathering and drafting phases of the claim are condensed to a short period of time;
(2) in an effort to establish a “serious issue to be tried” and otherwise to bolster the chances of success there is naturally a tendency to disclose all of the evidence obtained by the claimant; the defendant accordingly has advance warning of what can usually be assumed to be the high-water mark of the claimant’s claim.
THE ORDER
- Para 2.4 of PD – Interim Injunctions provides:
Whenever possible a draft of the order sought should be filed with the application notice and a disk containing the draft should also be available to the court in a format compatible with the word processing software used by the court. This will enable the court officer to arrange for any amendments to be incorporated and for the speedy preparation and sealing of the order.
- The early provision of a draft order for consideration by the court prior to the hearing to was emphasised in Memory Corporation plc v Sidhu (No 2) (supra) at p 1460 C per Mummery LJ. See also para 5.19 of the Chancery Guide 11.
- Para 5 of PD – Interim Injunctions identifies those matters which must, unless the court orders otherwise, be contained in any order for an injunction. They are:
- Applicant’s cross undertaking in damages
- Applicant’s undertaking, where the application is made without notice, to serve on respondent as soon as practicable the application notice, evidence in support and any order
- a return date (where application made without notice)
- Applicant’s undertaking (where application made before filing of application notice) to file and pay appropriate fee on same or next working day
- Applicant’s undertaking (where application made before issue of claim form) to issue and pay appropriate fee on same or next working day; or
- directions for commencement of claim
- clear statement of what respondent must do or not do
(^10) Since discovery of a vital piece of evidence. (^11) Reproduced in the White Book , 2008, vol 2, at p 18.
- Annexed to PD – Interim Injunctions are “examples” of a Freezing Injunction and a Search Order 12. These may be modified as appropriate in any particular case (see paras 6.2 and 7. of the PD) but should otherwise be regarded as standard form. A failure to adopt the latest version may be the subject of criticism (or worse) and any modification or departures from the standard form must be drawn to the court’s attention: see Memory Corporation plc v Sidhu (No 2) (supra) (freezing injunction); The Gadget Shop Limited v The Bug.com Ltd [2001] FSR 26 (search order).
WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS
- CPR 23.4 provides:
(1) The general rule is that a copy of the application notice must be served on each respondent. (2) An application may be made without serving a copy of the application notice if this is permitted by- (a) a rule 13 ; (b) a practice direction; or (c) a court order.
- CPR 23.7 contains rules as to:
(1) the time within which the application should be served; (2) the filing of written evidence with the application.
- Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the PD – Applications are also relevant: 3. An application may be made without serving an application notice only 14 : (1) where there is exceptional urgency, (2) where the overriding objective is best furthered by doing so, (3) by consent of all parties, (4) with the permission of the court, (5) where paragraph 2.10 above 15 applies, or (6) where a court order, rule or PD permits.
4.1 Unless the court otherwise directs or paragraph 3 of this practice direction applies the application notice must be served as soon as practicable after it has been issued and, if there is to be a hearing, at least 3 clear days before the hearing date (rule 23.7(1)(b)).
4.2 Where an application notice should be served but there is not sufficient time to do so, informal notification of the application should be given unless the circumstances of the application require secrecy.
- CPR 25.3 is in these terms:
(1) The court may grant an interim remedy on an application made without notice if it appears to the court that there are good reasons for not giving notice. (2) An application for an interim remedy must be supported by evidence, unless the court orders otherwise.
(3) If the applicant makes an application without giving notice, the evidence in support must state the reasons why notice has not been given.
(^12) Copies are attached to these notes. (^13) E.g. CPR 25.3(1). See paragraph 55 below. (^14) Emphasis added. (^15) Para 2.10 provides that where a date for a hearing has been fixed and a party wishes to make an application at that hearing
but he does not have sufficient time to serve an application notice he should inform the other party and the court (in writing if possible) as soon as he can of the nature of the application and the reason for it. He should then make the application orally at the hearing.
facts within his knowledge, and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, then he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings, and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. That is perfectly plain and requires no authority to justify it."
- Here we consider the following questions which arise in relation to the duty when making urgent injunction applications:
(1) When does the duty apply? (2) What is the nature and extent of the obligation? (3) How long does the duty last? (4) How is the respondent to know the obligation has been discharged? (5) What are the consequences of a failure to discharge this duty? (6) When to spot the tactical discharge application and how to address it?
(1) When does the duty apply?
- At first blush the answer to this question is obvious; it applies when the application is made without notice. That is correct as far as it goes. There can be no argument that the duty of full and frank disclosure always applies when an application is made without notice. It is an essential part of the quid pro quo for the court entertaining a departure from the fundamental principle of fairness that an order should not be made without giving the person who is the subject of the order a chance to be heard.
- What about short notice applications however; does the principle apply then?
- The Court may abridge the 3 day time for service (CPR 23.7(4)). Further, if there is insufficient time to serve in accordance with the rules, but an application needs to be heard urgently, informal notification of the application should be given unless the circumstances of the application require secrecy; see paragraph 4.2 of the PD set out in paragraph 54 above.
- So there may be a category of cases where the court will bless short notice, in which case, on conventional principles the duty of full and frank disclosure will not apply. There can be some advantages to an applicant in taking this approach if they do not wish to have to give full and frank disclosure, but nevertheless there is a good reason for urgency.
- In addition, circumstances may arise where the applicant cannot serve within the rules, but provides informal notification. It is frequently the case in those circumstances that the respondent may appear before the Court and personal service be effective. On one view the application is no longer without notice in those circumstances. Any fair minded observer can see however that whilst the respondent can be heard, and indeed may even be ably represented, there is not a level playing field.
- If a respondent is at all concerned in these circumstances that they cannot properly present a full case, they should invite the Court to treat the application on the basis that the duty of full and frank disclosure should apply. They can cite their old friend, the overriding objective, which specifically refers to ensuring the parties are on an “equal footing” as being a relevant consideration. They might invite the Court in those circumstances to direct that the Court should not give permission to serve short, but instead should treat the application as being effectively without notice, albeit with the benefit of limited submissions from the respondent.
- The applicant may have to accept, in those circumstances, that the duty should apply. But in their turn, even if not at the first hearing, if faced with a discharge application on the grounds of a breach of this duty, the applicant may profitably rely on the fact that the application was on short notice. They may seek to contend that the duty should be treated as tempered by that fact to a certain extent, or at least that the consequences of non-compliance should be less severe (see further below), especially if they can make out the case that any failure on their part could have been remedied by the respondent.
(2) What is the nature and extent of the obligation?
- There is a wealth of case on the nature and extent of the duty of full and frank disclosure. For present purposes it is useful to summarise the nature of the duty as follows (drawn from the decision of Bingham J in Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities [1986] 2 LR 428 @ 437, subsequently cited with approval in the more recent case of the Court of Appeal in Marc Rich & Co Holding GmbH v Krasner [1999] CLY 487):
(1) The applicant is required to show the utmost duty of good faith and must present his case fully and fairly; as such “fair presentation” cannot be separated from the duty; (2) The affidavit or witness statement in support of the application must summarise the case and the evidence on which it is based; (3) The applicant must identity the key points for and against the application and not rely on general statements and the mere exhibiting of unhelpful documents; (4) He or she must investigate the nature of the claim alleged and facts relied on before applying and must identify any likely defences; (5) He must disclose all facts, or matters, which reasonably could be taken to be material by the judge deciding whether to grant the application; the question of materiality is not to be determined by the applicant.
- The Courts have observed that it is especially important that the duty is strictly observed on a without notice application for relief which freezes the defendant's assets, invades his privacy and threatens his reputation; see Memory Corporation v Sidhu [2000] 1 WLR 1443.
- It is questionable whether there is any difference in the nature of the obligation as between different without notice injunctions. However the greater the risk of substantial prejudice the greater the consequences are likely to be for a breach of the duty; see the cases collected by Steven Gee QC in Commercial Injunctions, 5 th^ Edition @ para 9.001, footnote 6.
(3) How long does the duty last?
- Many litigants make the mistake of thinking that as long as they have discharged their duty before obtaining their order they no longer need be concerned with the duty. In fact, the duty remains in place until the order has been implemented. It is a continuing duty in that sense.
- The following matters have been considered to be relevant matters which have occurred after the application has been granted, but before full execution has occurred, which should have been drawn to the attention of the court before any further action had been taken:
(1) in relation to a freezing order, obtaining cautions to register against foreign properties owned by the defendants; see Commercial Bank of the Near East plc v A [1989] 2 LR 319;
(2) in relation to a search order, receiving a letter which offered voluntary access for the purpose of searching for certain items; see O’Regan v Iambic Productions (1989) 139 NLJ 1378;
(3) on an application to serve out of the jurisdiction, the existence of prior foreign proceedings; see Network Telecom (Europe) Ltd v Telephone Systems International Inc [2003] EWHC 2890 (QB) (Burton J).
- In the last case the nature of the continuing obligation is subjected to analysis and all the relevant cases are helpfully reviewed, notwithstanding the fact that the case id not concern an injunction application.
(6) When to spot the tactical discharge application and how to address it?
- The courts are very much alive to the tactical application by the respondent for the order to be discharged on grounds of material non-disclosure; see the observations of Timothy Walker J in Worldcom International v Home Communications Ltd, September 16, 1998, unrep.
- They are usually not difficult to spot. A good measure is where the respondent’s evidence and submissions on non-disclosure are greater than their evidence and submissions on the substantive part of the application. That said, even though the application may be tactical, that does not always provide the applicant with an easy way of dealing with them. The best approach is, if it is considered there is a risk of the court considering there has been any material non-disclosure, of ensuring that best efforts are made to cure any error which may have occurred, and explain how it may have arisen. But in some cases serious points may be raised which are not readily susceptible of summary disposal. In those cases it is a legitimate request that the application for discharge, or the relevant part, should be stood over to trial; see A v B (A Company ) [2002] EWCA Civ 337; [2002] 2 All ER 545 CA. That approach may be particularly attractive to the Court if it can be demonstrated that the cross undertaking as to damages offered is a solid one.
UNDERTAKINGS IN DAMAGES
Introduction
- It is commonly thought that the origin of the practice of the court to require an applicant for an injunction to give an undertaking (or cross-undertaking) in damages to protect the defendant is that it is part of the price for ex parte (without notice) relief. Whether or not that is correct, the practice has evolved that an undertaking in damages is expected whether or not the interim application is made without notice. The rationale is that it is an important protection in circumstances where the facts, and entitlement to relief, have yet to be determined. Whilst the question of whether an undertaking in damages should be given is discretionary, with a few exceptions, an undertaking should be given in all interim applications (such an undertaking is required, unless the court orders otherwise; para 5.1 of the PD to CPR Part 25). The fact that the applicant may not be good for any damages awarded is a separate matter, albeit an important consideration as to whether the order should be granted.
- It is useful to consider the undertaking in damages by reference to the following headings:
(1) The typical form of the undertaking (2) The nature of the undertaking (3) The impecunious applicant (4) Exceptions (5) Third parties (6) Fortification applications (7) Inquiries into damages
(1) The typical form of the undertaking
- The typical form of undertaking in favour of the defendant/respondent is in the following terms (taken from the example order for freezing orders):
(1) If the court later finds that this order has caused loss to the Respondent, and decides that the Respondent should be compensated for that loss, the Applicant will comply with any order the court may make.
(2) The nature of the undertaking
- It is important to understand the nature of the undertaking. It is to the Court, and therefore a breach of the undertaking is a contempt of court. However, it is for the benefit of the respondent in the event that the claim fails or the order is later set aside and the respondent has suffered loss as a result of the order; see Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AF v Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 @ 361. It does not, however, have any existence independent of the proceedings in which it is given. In particular, it is not considered to give rise to an independent cause of action. If an order is discharged, the remedy for the respondent is to obtain a direction from the court that an inquiry into damages is taken and an order made accordingly. Until such time as an order is made that damages should be payable the respondent is reliant on obtaining relief through the proceedings in which the undertaking was given.
(3) The impecunious applicant
- Given that an undertaking is required, unless the court orders otherwise, lawyers and clients alike frequently wrongly assume that an injunction cannot be obtained if the applicant does not have funds to support the undertaking, or cross undertaking. However it is well established that in the right case the fact that the applicant is impecunious will not be a bar to an order being granted; see Allen v Jumbo Holdings Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 1252 (the legally aided applicant provided an undertaking of questionable value in that case). In those cases the court will typically expect that the merits of the underlying claim are very good. In addition, however, the applicant may be able to make a persuasive case for contending that they are only impecunious due to the actions of the respondent of which complaint is made, and that is also a relevant factor for the court to consider (cf. security for costs applications).
- In addition, in the context of claw back claims brought by liquidators or other office holders of insolvent companies, the court will often accept a cross-undertaking in damages which is limited to the assets in the hands of the office holder (namely the net realizable and un- pledged assets of the company in liquidation); see DPR Futures Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 778, followed in RBG (Resources) Plc v Rastogi (31 May 2002) (Laddie J). The logic appears to be that because the office holder is acting in a representative capacity they cannot be expected to offer a personal undertaking (cf. the public body cases referred to as exceptions below).
- It should be noted, however that in many cases a claim brought by a liquidator will be supported by a commercial funder. That will be a material factor to disclose on any without notice hearing, and the court may in those circumstances consider that a limited undertaking in damages would not be appropriate; see the decision in Franses referred to above.
(4) Exceptions
- There are certain entities who are not required to offer an undertaking. The best known is the crown. This rule, or practice, also extends to local authorities and any public officer when bringing proceedings to enforce the law.
- For example, the secretary of state is not required to give a cross undertaking for the appointment of a provisional liquidation, which application is made on a without notice basis; see Re City Vintners Ltd , 10 December 2001, unrep.
(5) Third parties
- The current position is that the court is required to consider in all cases whether or not an undertaking should be made in relation to parties other than the respondent (see para 5.1A of the PD). The standard forms, or examples, include such an undertaking in freezing order cases, but not for search orders. It is presumably anticipated that in those cases where the undertaking is in the example order, the onus will be on the applicant to explain why the order is not appropriate, where as in other cases, the court is required to consider the point, but it is anticipated there will be no presumption applied.
- In freezing orders, the example order contains the following wording:
(7) The Applicant will pay the reasonable costs of anyone other than the Respondent which have been incurred as a result of this order including the costs of finding out whether that person holds any of the Respondent's assets and if the court
- After the Court has concluded the injunction was wrongly granted it may still conclude, as an exercise of discretion, that no inquiry should be directed. For example, the claimant may persuade the court that there are special circumstances which justify the conclusion that the undertaking should not be enforced. The claimant must be careful, therefore, when the issue of an inquiry arises, to ensure that its position is properly protected, or reserved, in relation to such matters when an inquiry is ordered, alternatively that those issues are determined before the inquiry is ordered. Otherwise, following the direction of an inquiry, the Court may only entertain argument on quantum.
- As stated above, the question of quantum is to be determined on the basis of conventional principles applicable as if there had been a breach of contract between claimant and defendant (see also, more recently, the decision in Eliades v Lewis [2005] EWHC 2966 (QB). It is important to distinguish between loss caused by the order and loss which might be caused by the proceedings generally. In some cases that may prove, difficult, or impossible to achieve; cf the decision above in Harley Street Capital Limited v Tchigirinsky. It should also be noted that where the Court is satisfied that an order has been obtained by fraud, the rules of remoteness should be relaxed and all loss flowing directly from the breach should be recoverable.
- There is a useful review of the relevant principles to apply when assessing special and general damages in the recent case of Al-Rawas v Pegasus Energy Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 617 (QB). In that case special damages was sought and obtained for wasted management time lost when dealing with a search and seizure order. In addition, the court was satisfied that general damages should be awarded for the inconvenience caused by the order, notwithstanding the absence of any direct evidence, because such inconvenience was an obvious inference from the relevant agreed facts. The claim for a general damages award for emotional distress was dismissed in that case, though it is well established that it can apply (and search orders carried out in the home of a defendant may give rise to such a claim; cf. the decision in Bonz Group (Pty) Ltdd v Cooke (1994) 3 NZLR 216 HC (Aus)). The court also awarded aggravated damages, since the order had been obtained by intentional concealment of a material matter.
IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
Introduction
- To make the most of the order, at the enforcement and implementation stage requires consideration of the relevant issues before the order is obtained. In many cases, consideration may need to be given as to whether the wording in the example, or standard, form of order should apply, or whether a variation should be considered. In addition the procedure for service needs to be given some thought in advance.
The need for personal service
- Whilst an order takes effect as soon as it has been made, it cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings if the respondent has not had notice of the order with a penal notice indorsed on it (RSC Ord 45 r7(4)). In cases where the injunction is solely prohibitive in nature (e.g. the standard form of freezing order) contempt proceedings cannot be brought, unless the court orders otherwise, unless the respondent is in court when the order is made or has been notified of its terms by telephone or otherwise (RSC Ord. 45 r7). By contrast, where the order is a mandatory order (such as, for example a search order), personal service must be effected, unless the court considers it just to dispense with this requirement (RSC Ord 45 r7(7)). Such a discretion can be exercised before or after the alleged breach of the order; see LTE Scientific Limited v Thomas [2005] EWHC 7 (QB).
- In short, in most cases it is best to ensure that personal service is effected if the respondent is not present in court when the order is made. That way, armed with an affidavit of service, there is unlikely to be any risk of further argument on the issue.
Committal proceedings
- Committal proceedings for contempt of court may be considered where, for example, a party has dissipated assets following the service of a freezing order, or has failed to disclose documents ancillary to such an order. Often the issue of such applications can cause the recalcitrant defendant to take notice of the allegation of default and remedy the position before the hearing occurs. It must be remembered however that such proceedings should not be issued lightly; proceedings for contempt are tightly regulated, as set out in RSC Ord
- For present purposes it is useful briefly to touch on some of the major principles which apply:
- First, it must be borne in mind that as long as the defendant has capacity to understand, there is no need to establish any mens rea. All that must be demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, is that a breach occurred. By contrast, if a non-party who is the subject of an application establishes that he honestly believed at the time he could do the acts complained of that may provide him with a defence.
- Secondly, a claimant must consider with care whether to initiate a committal application; if the court ultimately concludes that the breach was a technical one it may conclude that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of the application; see Adam Phones Ltd v Goldschmift [1999] 4 All ER 486. Proportionality and the availability of other remedies must be borne in mind.
- Thirdly, on the question of sentence, the Court has the power to imprison for a period of two years. Very serious and sustained breaches may result in a sentence in the period 18 months to 2 years; see Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman [2007] EWHC 1508 (Ch) (Henderson J).
- Fourthly, representatives for the defendant or non-party who is accused of contempt should always have in mind the ability to apply to court to purge his contempt, which effectively amounts to a plea for forgiveness. In some cases such an application can effectively avert a sentence of imprisonment, especially when coupled with other evidence of co-operative behaviour.
Unless orders
- Where there has been a breach of an injunction order, the claimant may also wish to consider, instead of a committal application, whether an unless order might provide more satisfactory relief. Given the drastic nature and effect of unless orders which debar a defendant from defending, the courts tend to be reluctant to make such orders and they are treated as orders of last resort; see Marcan Shipping v Kefalas & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ
- On one side of the fence, in Raja v van Hoogstraten [2004] 4 All ER 793, the court concluded that non compliance with a disclosure order (ancillary to a freezing order) did not prevent a fair trial and did not justify an order striking out the defence. On the other side, in the more recent decision of Lexi Holdings plc v Luqman [2007] EWCA Civ 1501, the Court of Appeal concluded that the respondent’s evidence that he had no, or negligible, assets was incredible and in those circumstances an unless order requiring a full statement of his asset position in default of which the defendant was debarred from defending should be made.
Territorial effect
- There is nothing to prevent an injunction being granted against a person over whom the Court has jurisdiction in relation to assets out of the jurisdiction. The most common example of this is the world wide freezing order (another example is where a receiver is appointed over assets abroad). This can lead to difficulties in enforcement, however.
- Again, however, it is sensible to give consideration in advance of the application whether this order is suited, or suitable to the specific facts which present themselves. The example order is not set in stone, and early advice from a foreign lawyer may assist to ensure that the order is effective in practice.
Richard Ascroft & Hugh Sims Guildhall Chambers September 2008
