Ship arrest abroad not in breach of undertaking in worldwide freezing order
The Commercial Court decision in the case E v M  EWHC 895 (Comm) is of practical importance because there appears to be no previous authority on one of the principal points considered, namely whether a claimant who has obtained a worldwide freezing order (WFO) from the English Court will be in breach of the standard undertaking in the WFO (not to seek a similar order abroad without the court’s permission) if it subsequently arrests a vessel belonging to the defendant in another jurisdiction in order to obtain security for its claim.
Mr Justice Hamblen held that the arrest did not constitute a breach of the claimant’s undertaking in the WFO and refused to discharge the WFO…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
Why register to The Lawyer
More relevant to you
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
B Atlantic provides a good example of the courts’ approach to construing exclusions (with perhaps surprising outcomes) and in assessing whether a foreign court has acted perversely or by reason of political interference.
The ECJ has confirmed that the Brussels Regulation does not prevent a EU member state court from recognising and enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by arbitrators.