The court refused to continue a freezing order and asset preservation order that the claimant wife had obtained in support of proceedings in the Israeli Family Court.
Facts
- The orders had been obtained two months previously, without notice to H. At the return date, W sought to continue that relief under s.25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, but on a reframed basis.
- In determining that there had been no non-disclosure of material facts at the without notice hearing, the judge reminded herself of the guidance contained within paragraph 162 of Arena Corporation Limited (in Provisional Liquidation) v Perter Schroeder [2003] EWHC 1089.
Held
- Further, in order to grant relief, the court had to be satisfied that if the main proceedings were taking place in England rather than Israel, the English court would grant relief.
- It must also consider whether it would nonetheless be inexpedient to grant the relief sought (Credit Suisse v Cuoghi [1998] QB 818). However, on the facts of the case, there was no real risk of dissipation.
- Where the claimant’s foreign claim was for a money judgment, they were not entitled to seek a proprietary claim under s.25 applying American Cyanamid principles; the claimant must establish an entitlement to a freezing order.
