CL-2024-000694 - [2025] EWHC 1647 (Comm)

JURISDICTION TO GRANT FREEZING ORDER AGAINST THIRD PARTIES

In the light of the conclusions I reach in section (D) above, it is not necessary for me to determine the further questions of whether there is power under section 44(2)(e) of the Act or under PD6 § 3.1(3) to grant a freezing order against a non-party to an arbitration agreement. The answer to these questions depends mainly on the effect, at least as a matter of comity, and the correctness, of the observations in Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm), DTEK Trading v Morozov [2017] EWHC 94 (Comm) and A v C [2020] EWCA Civ 409 and the decision in Trans-Oil International v Savoy Trading [2020] EWHC 57 (Comm). There is also a question about whether a positive answer to the questions would in some way undermine the transitional provisions in the Arbitration Act 2025, section 9 of which will, when in force, resolve any remaining uncertainty.

The CCC Defendants invite me to decide the matter now, in case the Claimant makes a fresh application for a WWFO in connection with a fresh claim form. However, even if the Claimant were to take that approach, it is not presently known whether that issue would have to be determined: it might depend on whether any injunction should be granted at all having regard to the considerations mentioned in § 59 above. In my view it would be undesirable for me to decide the point now in circumstances where it is, and may remain, unnecessary to do so.