Windrush is a useful reminder of the importance of taking care when drafting freezing orders and consenting to continuation, writes Gita Chakravarty

As the mercury continues to fall, it’s a good time to review recent developments in freezing injunctions. Andrew Baker QC set about defrosting an unusual freezing injunction in Windrush Intercontinental SA v Bitumen Invest A/S [2016] EWHC 2077 (Comm), which gave rise to a number of interesting practical points, including problems arising out of consenting to the continuation of a freezing order and principles of construction.

The background to the freezing order was a credit agreement for the purchase of a ship. In January 2014 the ship was lost at sea, at which time a significant amount was owed to the claimant under the credit agreement.

To continue reading

This article is part of our subscription-based access. Please pick one of the options below to continue.

Already registered? Login to access premium content

Not registered? Subscribe