Resolving an important issue for businesses and individuals using holding companies, investment vehicles and other corporate structures, the Court of Appeal has clarified the scope of the assets caught by the standard form Commercial Court freezing injunction wording in favour of the defendant, Mr Nobu Su.
In short, the assets of a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of a freezing injunction defendant are not themselves frozen and the subsidiary is not directly caught by the injunction. As Rimer LJ made clear, the contrary view of “control” is heretical being contrary to the principles of company law and identity confirmed by recent decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in Prest v Prest ( 2 WLR 537 and  2 AC 415).
The Court of Appeal has thus ended the confusion arising from the opposing judgments (given on the same day) by Burton J in this case ( EWHC 1814 (Comm)) and by Hildyard J in Group Seven v Allied Investment Corp.  1 WLR 735
Josephine Davies appeared for the Defendants/Appellants (instructed by Cooke Young & Keidan LLP).