Legal News

Contribution claims and freezing injunctions (Kazakhstan Kagazy v Zhunus)

Contribution claims and freezing injunctions (Kazakhstan Kagazy v Zhunus)
Published on: 12 May 2016
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Contribution claims and freezing injunctions (Kazakhstan Kagazy v Zhunus)
  • Practical implications
  • Facts
  • Should the court grant the application for permission to serve the contribution notice following the settlement?
  • Did the court have power to grant the freezing injunction in support of the contribution claim?
  • Could the court grant a freezing injunction in aid of a claim which is premised on the fraud of the applicant?
  • Could the court grant a freezing injunction in support of a contribution claim where there is no pre-existing cause of action for the contribution claim?
  • When does the cause of action for contribution accrue?
  • Is quia timet relief available in the context of a contribution claim?
  • Conclusion
  • More...

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: Leggatt J in the High Court has considered whether a defendant can bring a contribution claim against his co-defendant following the claimant settling their claim against the co-defendant. He also considered whether the court has power to grant a freezing injunction or alternative quia timet relief in aid of a contribution claim. This decision is of interest to practitioners advising co-defendants where the possibility of a contribution claim under Part 20 might arise. Of particular interest is Leggatt J's criticism of the requirement that there must be an accrued cause of action in order for the court to grant in injunction. His view was that this line of authority was 'ripe for reconsideration’. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents