- In Brief: Freezing order continued against law firm under Chabra jurisdiction (Phoenix v Cochrane)
- Original news
- What should Dispute Resolution lawyers take note of?
- What was this case about?
- What did the court decide?
- Legal basis for freezing order?
- Chabra basis for freezing order
- Balance of convenience
- Procedural irregularities
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court continued a freezing order made against a solicitors’ firm in respect of £2m paid into its client account for fees and disbursements. The order was made under the court’s Chabra jurisdiction since the law firm was not a defendant to the substantive proceedings. However, there was good reason to suppose that the £2m would, ultimately, be available to satisfy a judgment against the main defendant. Popplewell J also rejected other potential bases for a freezing order against a non-cause of action defendant, did not resolve the potential conflicting authority on the scope of the Chanel v Woolworth principle, and confirmed that a transfer of money paid for invoiced fees and paid disbursements into a solicitor’s client account is not an incomplete transfer merely because it had only got as far as the general client account.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial