Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 2208 October 2024

Jurisdiction
The Commercial Court has rejected a challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court to consider an application for an order for recognition and enforcement of a judgment of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation. Considering each of the requirements in turn, the court was satisfied that the claim fell within gateway 10 for ordering service out of the jurisdiction “to enforce any judgment or arbitral award” and that it had a real prospect of success, notwithstanding any challenges that may be brought in future. It also confirmed that England and Wales was a proper place to bring the claim. The claimant did not have to show that there were assets available in the jurisdiction for execution. Finally, there was no risk of injustice to the defendants due to a multiplicity of proceedings or inconsistent outcomes, and there was no infringement of international judicial comity or contravention of domestic public policy.
Al Hamed v Al Hamed [2024] EWHC 2448 (Comm), 1 October 2024

Freezing Injunction
The appellant had been joined to proceedings between two companies of which she had control or had been a director. The dispute concerned payments made by one company to the other and of which the paying company now sought repayment. A freezing injunction had also been made against the appellant and she now challenged the making of that worldwide injunction. In upholding the injunction, the court held that there was a serious issue to be tried, including taking account of issues of Angolan law. In reaching its conclusion, the court also gave clear guidance on the applicable test, namely “serious issue to be tried” and confirmed that the “good arguable case” test should be used only in the context of jurisdictional gateways.
Dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109, 30 September 2024

Insurance – Covid 19
The Court of Appeal has rejected a reinsurer’s appeal against a decision that it was liable for losses suffered by nurseries and childcare facilities during the pandemic. The court confirmed that the outbreak of the pandemic and the closure of schools and nurseries did qualify as a “catastrophe” within the meaning of the policy. A catastrophe did not have to be sudden or violent. Further the policy did not require business interruption losses to be apportioned so that only those which occurred during the policy period could be recovered.
Unipolsai Assicurazioni SpA v Covea Insurance Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 1110, 30 September 2024

Freezing Injunction
The Chancery Court has rejected a defendant’s application to set aside a freezing injunction against him. The challenge was brought a year after the original injunction was made. The defendant had failed to attend the original hearing and the court held that his reasons for not attending (lack of funds) were not valid where the injunction permitted funds to be used for living expenses. There remained a risk of dissipation of assets; the case on fraud that the claimant asserted against the defendant supported that position.
Bluehouse Capital Advisers and another v Ioranides [2024] EWHC (Ch), 2 October 2024 (judgment not yet publicly available)

Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams: