Legal News

In Brief: Freezing order continued against law firm under Chabra jurisdiction (Phoenix v Cochrane)

Published on: 09 March 2017
Published by: LexisPSL
  • 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

Article summary

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. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents