CR-2024-000675 - [2025] EWHC 2069 (Ch)

The usual American Cyanamid principles apply to the proprietary injunction sought.

Counsel cited Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon(No.1) [1990] Ch. 48 at 57 to identify the following well-established requirements for the grant of a worldwide freezing order:

On good arguable case, I was also referred to the confirmation in dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 that good arguable case is the merits test for a Freezing Order. My attention was also drawn specifically to [130] in dos Santos:

“130….the invasive nature of the relief should be taken into account in considering the other aspects of the test which are required to be fulfilled; in the safeguards built in to the wording of the orders in the form of exceptions; and in the application of the cross-undertaking in damages. I understand the concern that freezing orders should not be granted too readily, and fully endorse the proposition that care should be taken to ensure that they do not operate unfairly. It is always necessary to give anxious scrutiny not only to the second limb of the test, real risk of dissipation, but also to the third, whether it is just and convenient to make the order. Although this has been expressed as the third limb of the test, it is ultimately the whole test expressed in s. 37 Senior Courts Act 1981, and should be considered in every case, having regard among other things to the effect of granting, or not granting, the order. It may come to the forefront in the context of applications to set aside a freezing order, or to vary it so as to permit particular expenditure or transactional activity, the restraint of which represents the invasive nature of the order. It is by reference to the just and convenient criterion that the apparent strength of the claim may fall again for consideration…”.

In my judgment, the Liquidators plainly have a good arguable case. See the summary of their case at [7] above. Furthermore, in the explanation of the Respondents’ position, it was necessary to review the rival contentions and that review reinforces the existence of a good arguable case.

The claim is plainly justiciable here because this is an English liquidation and the Liquidators are officers of this court, carrying out statutory functions under the IA 1986.