Parallel legal expenses exceptions in proprietary and non-proprietary freezing orders (AB v CD)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision helpfully sets out the basis upon which the court will approach the interpretation of identical wording in separate but similar orders, in this case in the unusual context of a legal expenses exception contained in parallel proprietary (PFO) and non-proprietary (WFO) freezing orders where all of the defendant’s (D1’s) assets were captured by the PFO and would be substantially extinguished by the proposed expenditure. The judgment also illustrates the approach that the court will take when exercising its discretion whether to permit legal expenditure under a PFO, the level and nature of evidence required, and the factors the court will take into account when determining the amount of funds that should be released if any. Written by Jon Felce, partner at Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP.