Worldwide freezing order - dispute relating to alleged fraudulent inducement in different jurisdiction - generally necessary to show connection between relief sought and UK jurisdiction or residence within jurisdiction

Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others: CA (Lords Justice Thorpe, Potter and Tuckey): 12 June 2003

The claimant brought an action in the US, claiming, among other things, that each of the defendants had fraudulently induced the claimant to enter into financing agreements with a company under the control of the four defendants, and alleging that each of the defendants was personally liable for the whole amount outstanding.

The claimant's application in the English court for worldwide freezing orders against the defendants was granted.

The defendants appealed.

The judge refused to discharge the orders and held that it had been expedient to make the order pursuant to section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

The defendants appealed.

Nicholas Strauss QC, Richard Gordon QC and Alain Choo Choy (instructed by Weil Gotshal & Manges) for the first, second and third defendants; Kenneth MacLean QC (instructed by Weil Gotshal & Manges) for the fourth defendant; George Leggatt QC, Michael Bools and Alan Maclean (instructed by Steptoe & Johnson) for the claimant.

Held, allowing the appeals of the first, second and third defendants and dismissing the appeal of the fourth defendant, that a court would be slow to make a worldwide freezing order under section 25 of the 1982 Act to grant interim relief in support of an action in another jurisdiction in circumstances where a defendant was neither domiciled nor resident within the jurisdiction, where there was no substantial connection between the relief sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the English court and where the absence of such a connection rendered it inexpedient to grant the relief on the basis that there was no practicable means of enforcing the orders of the court.