In the recent case of Dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 the Court of Appeal considered the merits threshold for a freezing injunction and concluded that it should be equated with that of a normal injunction.

Although there had been some previous debate as to the distinction between the ‘good arguable case’ and a ‘serious question to be tried’ many had thought that in practice a freezing injunction carried a more stringent examination of the underlying merits of a claim. It was, after all, one of the Court’s nuclear weapons.

However after reviewing all of the authorities the Chancellor (Sir Julian Flaux) concluded that there should be no difference between the two and rejected the suggestion that the ‘good arguable case’ should be the same test across freezing injunctions and the jurisdictional gateway on the basis of Haddon-Cave LJH’s judgment in Lakatamia Shipping Co. Ltd. v Morimoto [2019] EWCA Civ 2203.

This decision is in keeping with a string of recent decisions where the Courts have seemed to be more ‘claimant friendly’ in its approach to this form of relief (see Canada Inc v Sovereign Finance Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 2170 (Comm); Piacquadio v Sparkes [2024] EWHC 2518 (Ch) and Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 Limited [2024] EWHC 2522 (Comm)) whilst emphasising the continued need for full and frank disclosure by the applicant (see Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Ford [2024] EWCA Civ 959).

In our upcoming seminar, Emily Saunderson and Conor Fenton-Garvey will examine the caselaw referred to above and other recent cases in this field, and explain why the Freezing Injunction remains one of the most attractive pre-emptive strikes for a victim of fraud.

Timings:

17:30 - Registration
18:00 - Seminar starts
19:00 - Drinks reception
20:30 - Close

REGISTER HERE