- Worldwide freezing order—risk of dissipation and effect of delay (PJSC National Bank Trust v Mints)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This was a return date hearing relating to a worldwide freezing order (WFO) made at a without notice hearing against individual Russian defendants in favour of Russian banks (the banks) who had lent substantial sums of money to companies with which they were associated. Continuation of the WFO was resisted by the defendants on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of a risk of dissipation and that there had been material delay in bringing the application. Mr Justice Jacobs had to consider whether the risk of dissipation had been shown sufficiently, bearing in mind the allegations of fraud which constituted the underlying cause of action, and also the implications of there having been a number of months’ delay in bringing the application. The court continued the WFO. Written by John Bignall, barrister, at 7 King’s Bench Walk.
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