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.
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
The Corporate IP Licence is tailored to your firm, making it the most cost effective way for the firm to access Solicitors Journal, and enables the firm to remain compliant with copyright and our Terms and Conditions. This gives you the ability to print and circulate articles within the firm.
To enquire about a Corporate IP Licence for your firm, please contact our Subscriptions Manager on george.miller@solicitorsjournal.com.
6c919.jpg)
