ICICI Bank UK Plc v Diminco NV (Rev 1)
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Conflict of Laws
- Banking and Finance Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a request by an English bank for a worldwide freezing order and asset disclosure against a Belgian diamond distributor, related to a default on loan obligations. Initially granted a freezing order without asset disclosure, the bank sought further relief which was partially granted and partially denied. The court granted freezing and disclosure orders for assets within England and Wales but denied worldwide disclosure due to lack of jurisdiction and enforceability.
Approved Judgment
MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL : This is the return date in an application which was for a worldwide freezing order, including an order for disclosure of assets worldwide, pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in aid of a claim made in Belgian proceedings. A worldwide freezing order was made inter partes by Eder J on 18 July 2014 without any asset disclosure provision. The freezing order was unusual in that the operative freezing provisions recited in the order were undertakings given to the Court by leading counsel who was then instructed by the Defendant.
The freezing order included reference to four identified bank accounts, held at banks in London, as assets falling within the scope of the freezing order. On 7 August 2014 Andrew Smith J made an order that the Defendant must file and serve any evidence upon which it intended to rely at this hearing by 4pm on 14 August 2014. The Defendant did not do so. Instead, it wrote a letter to the Court sent on the evening of 17 August in which it said:
“Diminco, after careful consideration, has decided not to serve any evidence in the English proceedings or to take any further active part in them. Diminco is already having to deal with proceedings in Belgium and elsewhere at the same time as managing its day-to-day business and simply does not have available the necessary management and legal resources to deal with yet further proceedings in England. Diminco proposes, nevertheless, to summarise in this letter its objections to the relief which your client (the Bank) is seeking in the English proceedings. Please ensure that this letter is shown to the Court at the hearing of any application which the bank may make.”
Insofar as the letter then sought to put evidence before the court, I decline to take any account of it because the Defendant has failed to comply with the order of Andrew Smith J. In any event the letter recorded the Defendant’s decision not to serve evidence or to play any active part. Nevertheless, it is right that I should take account of the two arguments advanced in the letter why the court should decline the relief sought by the Claimant. They are, first, that there is no evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets; and, secondly, that it is inexpedient to grant relief against the Defendant, over which this Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
The Claimant, to whom I shall refer to as “the Bank”, is an English bank. It is the wholly owned sub