| S. 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, | | | | likely to be a potential conflict as to jurisdiction |
| as extended by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments | | | | rendering it inappropriate and inexpedient to make a |
| Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997 ("CJJA") gives the | | | | worldwide order. |
| power to the English court to grant interim relief in | | | | 5. Whether, in a case where jurisdiction is resisted and |
| proceedings that have been, or are about to be, | | | | disobedience to be expected, the court will make an |
| commenced in a foreign state. The proceedings | | | | order which it cannot enforce. |
| authorized by the CJJA are free-standing proceedings | | | | 6. Mobil v Petroleos was a case involving the |
| brought solely for the purpose of obtaining the interim | | | | Venezuelan national oil producer which sought to |
| relief. In such cases, the merits will not be decided in | | | | unilaterally "repatriate" the oil enterprises owned by |
| England & Wales. The cause of action can also | | | | Mobil to companies that were 60% owned by |
| be one which will be determined in arbitration | | | | Venezuela. Mobil sought ICC arbitration in New York |
| proceedings which will be conducted abroad. | | | | and was granted an ex parte worldwide freezing |
| However, where the cause of action is not one which | | | | injunction order under s. 44 Arbitration Act 1996. |
| will be adjudicated upon in England & Wales, | | | | Walker J held that were an award can be easily |
| careful attention must be paid to the basis upon which | | | | enforced under ICC Rules a freezing order is unlikely |
| it is said that the court has jurisdiction. Under s. 25(2) of | | | | to be just and reasonable. The recipient of the order |
| the CJJA, the court may decide to refuse relief if the | | | | must be shown to have a sufficient connection to the |
| fact that the court has no jurisdiction apart from under | | | | jurisdiction of England & Wales or there must be |
| s. 25 of the CJJA "makes it inexpedient for the court | | | | some other relevant reason to justify an order. Strong |
| to grant it". | | | | justification is required to counter the principle of comity |
| The Court of Appeal has given guidelines on the | | | | with other jurisdictions. In this case there was no |
| approach to take in deciding this issue in Motorola | | | | justification for an order since Petroleos had neither |
| Credit Corp v Uzan (No 2) which held that there are 5 | | | | assets nor presence nor any dispute in the England |
| considerations which the court should bear in mind | | | | & Wales jurisdiction. |
| when considering the question whether it is | | | | ETI Euro Telecom v Bolivia was a case involving |
| "inexpedient" to make an order under s. 25 CJJA: | | | | Bolivian decrees unilaterally nationalising shareholdings in |
| 1. Whether the making of the order will interfere with | | | | ETI's subsidiary company. Arbitration proceedings |
| the management of the case in the primary court: e.g. | | | | were commenced and ETI sought a worldwide |
| where the order is inconsistent with an order in the | | | | freezing order against the Bolivian Government. In this |
| primary court or overlaps with it. | | | | case there were assets in London. The court held that |
| 2. Whether it is the policy in the primary jurisdiction not | | | | s. 25 CJJA did not apply since the New York order |
| itself to make worldwide freezing orders. | | | | sought was for an attachment in aid of arbitration only |
| 3. Whether there is a danger that the orders made will | | | | for assets held in New York. |
| give rise to disharmony or confusion and/or risk of | | | | However, in Mediterranean Shipping v OMG |
| conflicting inconsistent or overlapping orders in other | | | | International a mafia fraud case the court held that |
| jurisdictions, in particular the courts of the state where | | | | where there is cogent evidence of fraud, even though |
| the person enjoined resides or where the assets | | | | there were no assets in the jurisdiction and the court |
| affected are located. If so, then respect for the | | | | would not ordinarily have granted the order, it was |
| territorial jurisdiction of that state should discourage the | | | | apparent that the fraud had been perpetuated in the |
| English court from using its unusually wide powers | | | | UK and worldwide and therefore international |
| against a foreign defendant. | | | | co-operation was essential. |
| 4. Whether at the time the order is sought there is | | | | |