Subject-Matter Index

Ancillary disclosure order. See Freezing orders—scope of related disclosure order. CIVIL PROCEDURE (Disclosure—jurisdiction to order disclosure), (Disclosure—scope of disclosure)

“Anti-anti-suit” injunctions. See Anti-suit injunction—restraint of foreign proceedings

Anti-suit injunction

amenability to jurisdiction. See Anti-suit injunction—jurisdiction of Guernsey courts

comity. See Anti-suit injunction—factors to be considered

duty of full and frank disclosure

applicant seeking ex parte anti-suit injunction to make full and frank disclosure of all relevant information—injunction may be discharged for material non-disclosure—court to deprive applicant of advantage gained by non-disclosure—discharge of order discretionary, not automatic: Ashton v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [21]

innocent non-disclosure may be treated more leniently than deliberate omission—not always so, in light of duty to make all proper enquiries: Ashton v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [21]

ex parte applications

only to be granted if urgency and risk that inter partes hearing will cause irreversible harm to applicant—respondent’s opposing application or making further application in proceedings sought to be restrained insufficient justification for ex parte hearing: Ashton v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [21]

factors to be considered

appropriateness of foreign forum to be considered in assessing respondent’s conduct, but may easily be overridden by other considerations—no anti-suit injunction against foreign proceedings if unjustly deprives claimant of advantage in foreign forum: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

caution required if anti-suit injunction could interfere with process of justice in foreign court—less reason for caution if injunction sought to restrain proceedings brought in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clause—granted unless strong reason not to do so: Ashton v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [21]

court to consider comity and how foreign court perceives interference: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

in granting anti-suit injunction against operation of exclusive jurisdiction clause, to consider whether Guernsey not only forum conveniens, but only jurisdiction able to hear all claims, whether overriding clause in public interest, whether foreign proceedings vexatious or oppressive, and whether enables Guernsey courts to protect legitimately conferred jurisdiction: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 638

normally granted against foreign proceedings if in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Guernsey—without exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Guernsey, no right not to be sued in particular forum—if no contractual reason to prevent foreign proceedings, Guernsey proceedings to be in clear need of protection: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

procedural difference between Guernsey and foreign jurisdiction not justification for anti-suit injunction, but may be if taken in combination with other factors, e.g. Guernsey substantive proceedings determined without respondent’s counterclaim, and no provision in foreign jurisdiction for early resolution of unconscionable proceedings: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

public interest—court may grant anti-suit injunction against operation of exclusive jurisdiction if in public interest, e.g. because avoids waste of judicial and parties’ resources, fragmentation of claims, uncertainty, satellite disputes, parallel proceedings and risk of inconsistent decisions and consequent injustices, prevents loss to claimant of benefit of composite trial, saves costs and allows hearing of statutory claims against company directors to help maintain Guernsey’s reputation as a centre for business: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 638

injunction against foreign proceedings. See Anti-suit injunction—restraint of foreign proceedings

jurisdiction of Guernsey courts

Guernsey courts have jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in respect of proceedings brought in foreign jurisdiction by party to proceedings in Guernsey, e.g. if in breach of clause giving exclusive jurisdiction over dispute to Guernsey courts: Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. v. Winnetka Trading Corp. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [29]

may only restrain party amenable to jurisdiction—discretion to restrain foreign proceedings to be exercised with caution since interference with foreign court: Ashton v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [21]

procedure

party seeking injunction to restrain foreign proceedings to apply promptly before foreign action too far advanced: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

restraint of foreign proceedings

court may grant “anti-anti-suit” injunction against foreign proceedings in spite of exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign jurisdiction, e.g. if Guernsey forum conveniens and only jurisdiction able to hear all claims, in public interest, foreign proceedings vexatious or oppressive, and Guernsey court fulfilling duty to protect its legitimately conferred jurisdiction, e.g. to hear application for removal of directors and recovery of substantial damages under Companies (Guernsey) Law 1994, ss. 67A–67D and 106: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 638

court may grant anti-suit injunction against foreign proceedings, notwithstanding exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign jurisdiction, if brought vexatiously or oppressively, e.g. party makes informed, tactical choice to litigate certain claims in Guernsey notwithstanding exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign jurisdiction, but then seeks to enforce clause to obtain more favourable decision abroad: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 638

court to follow English principles, i.e. (a) granted if foreign proceedings vexatious, oppressive or unconscionable; (b) granted if proceedings in breach of jurisdiction clause, unless 1968 Brussels Convention applies; (c) whether foreign proceedings to be considered in assessing conduct of party suing for purpose of restraining injunction; (d) court requires sufficient legitimate interest in foreign proceedings to grant injunction, i.e. Guernsey proceedings normally require protection; (e) respect for comity and how foreign court would perceive interference in proceedings; and (f) no injunction if unjustly deprives claimant in foreign proceedings of advantage in that jurisdiction: Winnetka Trading Corp. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 260

court’s granting “anti-anti-suit” injunction against foreign proceedings does not offend principle of comity, since remedy in personam, directed at parties rather than foreign court itself: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 638

discharge of injunction against foreign anti-suit proceedings—factors to be considered: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

ex parte injunction—court may grant “anti-anti-suit” injunction ex parte if (a) grounds for granting order sufficiently clear and clear; and (b) imperative need to make order immediately and urgently to preserve parties’ positions until inter partes hearing possible: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

injunction available to restrain foreign proceedings following final judgment on matter in Guernsey court if Guernsey forum conveniens and foreign action oppressive, vexatious or unconscionable, or outcome of Guernsey proceedings requires protection: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

to help develop modern commercial jurisprudence, court has inherent jurisdiction to enjoin anti-suit proceedings in foreign jurisdiction whenever justice demands, e.g. to prevent exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign jurisdiction being used to avoid liability in insolvency proceedings under Companies (Guernsey) Law 1994 and impede right of appeal in Guernsey: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

Anti-suit injunctions

restraint of foreign proceedings

court to consider (i) whether serious question to be tried; (ii) if so, whether damages would be adequate remedy; and (iii) balance of convenience: De Montfort Secs. Ltd. v. Abacus (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR 226

jurisdiction to be exercised with caution—only to be granted to prevent injustice: De Montfort Secs. Ltd. v. Abacus (Guernsey) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 1997–99 GLR 226

Burden of proof. See Freezing orders—burden of proof. Freezing orders—respondent’s legitimate expenses

Clameur de Haro

declaration. See Clameur de Haro—registration

presence of wrongdoer. See Clameur de Haro—raising Clameur

raising Clameur

alternative is application for interim injunction—may be appropriate if Clameur not raised in presence of wrongdoer, or if in future cannot be raised because interference with land expected but complainant not available to raise Clameur: In re C (Clameur de Haro) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 16

Clameur to be pronounced in approved form in presence of at least two witnesses and probably of alleged wrongdoer or his agent—remedy requires immediate cessation of interference with land, or penal and reparatory consequences follow—suggestion that later notification of wrongdoer valid if via H.M. Sergeant contrary to spirit of immediacy in procedure: In re C (Clameur de Haro) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 16

registration

application may be heard by Bailiff in court or chambers—personal hearing by Bailiff elsewhere possible if court facilities not available, e.g. if outside normal court hours: In re C (Clameur de Haro) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 16

complainant to be examined on oath by Bailiff within 24 hours as to contents of declaration—normally to be accompanied by witnesses to raising Clameur but may permit registration process to continue without witnesses if have signed declaration and given full names and addresses: In re C (Clameur de Haro) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 16

witnesses. See Clameur de Haro—raising Clameur. Clameur de Haro—registration

Comity. See Anti-suit injunction—factors to be considered

Discharge. See Freezing orders—discharge

Disclosure. See Anti-suit injunction—duty of full and frank disclosure. Freezing orders—ancillary disclosure

Domestic violence. See FAMILY LAW (Domestic violence—domestic violence injunction)

Ex parte applications. See Anti-suit injunction—ex parte applications

“Exceptional circumstances.” See Freezing orders—use for foreign proceedings

Freezing orders

ancillary disclosure

court has discretion, to be used sparingly, to order ancillary disclosure in support of freezing order, for purpose of policing order and not as part of fishing expedition: Vardinoyannis v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 221

full and frank disclosure of respondent’s assets may be ordered if applicant challenges provision of reasonable living expenses from funds subject to freezing order: Jameel v. Zerrouk (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 511

jurisdiction. See CIVIL PROCEDURE (Disclosure—jurisdiction to order disclosure)

withdrawal of reasonable living expenses permitted if no other assets available—if applicant challenges provision, respondent to show expenses reasonable—court may order full and frank disclosure of assets: Jameel v. Zerrouk (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 511

burden of proof

on inter partes hearing, burden on plaintiff obtaining order to show properly obtained and should be continued—not on defendant to show why should not have been made: Kaduna Ltd. v. Durtnell (R.) & Sons Ltd. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 208

whether on inter partes hearing plaintiff has burden of proving order should be continued or defendant of proving should never have been made is matter of public interest justifying leave to appeal: R. Durtnell & Sons Ltd. v. Kaduna Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [9]

discharge

court has power pursuant to Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, ss. 14 and 17 and Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Guernsey) Rules 1964, r.12 to lift Mareva order over shares and order transfer of shares to other party where appropriate in circumstances—jurisdiction not limited to discharge of order: Hulme v. Matheson Secs. (Channel Islands) Ltd. (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 65

court may discharge freezing order over assets of protected cell company in administration if order unnecessarily fetters payment of administration expenses, including cost of legal advice: Messenger Ins. PCC Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR 206

discharge of freezing order for material non-disclosure depends on circumstances—court to deprive party of advantage obtained by non-disclosure—may discharge without further assessment of merits, but to act proportionately and treat inadvertent non-disclosure more leniently than deliberate omission: Vardinoyannis v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 221

if discharge appropriate, to be implemented immediately—undesirable to specify cut-off date months in advance without knowledge of what circumstances then likely to be: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

no discharge of freezing order on jurisdictional grounds if good arguable case against Guernsey company and foreign owner—no need to demonstrate more at interlocutory stage: Vardinoyannis v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 221

preferable to keep in place for months rather than years, since purpose to maintain funds to meet immediate needs within jurisdiction—court may specify cut-off date for order, especially if frozen funds part of long-term investment portfolio—long cut-off date allows opportunity for appeal and, if necessary, time for further proprietary proceedings to recover funds: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 442

stay of discharge—no stay pending appeal if removal of funds continues unlikely because of refusal of Financial Intelligence Service to consent—if freezing in aid of foreign proceedings, existence of substantial disposable assets in foreign jurisdiction suggests that judgment there can be met from local funds without reliance on frozen Guernsey assets: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

unofficial freezing of assets of foreign company under Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1999 by failure of Financial Intelligence Service to consent to transfer may be lifted on application to Royal Court—appropriate if assets held in Guernsey registered bank and account governed by Guernsey law: Fidelity Management Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada (C.I.) Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR N [14]

duty of full and frank disclosure

duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte application for freezing order: Vardinoyannis v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 221

if duty breached, court to deprive party of advantage obtained by non-disclosure—may discharge order without further assessment of merits, but to act proportionately and treat inadvertent non-disclosure more leniently than deliberate omission: Vardinoyannis v. Ansol Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 221

plaintiff to make full and frank disclosure of material facts—if duty breached, court to deprive party of advantage obtained by non-disclosure—whether fact not disclosed is sufficiently material to justify immediate discharge of injunction depends on importance to issues to be decided—following serious misconduct, Mareva injunction lifted over shares and shares ordered to be transferred to other party: Hulme v. Matheson Secs. (Channel Islands) Ltd. (C.A.), 1997–99 GLR 45

ex parte application

legitimate to make ex parte application without notice to defendant if time strictly limited and no opportunity for defendant to obtain legal representation, e.g. application made on December 27th, with security due to expire on December 31st: Kaduna Ltd. v. Durtnell (R.) & Sons Ltd. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 208

judgment to be protected

applicant to identify prospective foreign judgment to be protected by freezing order against frustration by defendant’s dissipation of assets: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

party seeking order usually to identify prospective judgment to be protected if dissipation of funds likely—if difficult to be precise, court may be inclined to impose cut-off date indicating duration of order, by which time judgment enforceable in Guernsey should have been given—may maintain order to protect claims based on facts discovered after original order made, if of nature envisaged at time of order: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 442

proceeds of criminal conduct

consent regime under Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1999, s.39(3) may have practical effect of informally freezing assets without judicial oversight, but not accurate characterization of legislation—assets effectively frozen by ordinary operation of criminal law as parties unwilling to transfer assets for fear of criminal liability if Financial Intelligence Service refuses consent: Customs & Excise, Immigration & Nationality Service (Chief Officer) v. Garnet Invs. Ltd. (C.A.), 2011–12 GLR 250

related disclosure orders. See Freezing orders—scope of related disclosure order

respondent’s legitimate expenses

freezing order not to be oppressive—withdrawal of reasonable living expenses permitted if no other assets available, but court to consider fundamental purpose of order to protect assets from dissipation and to ensure satisfaction of subsequent judgment—burden of proof on applicant challenging expenses to show prima facie conflict with purpose, but respondent to show expenses reasonable—court may order full and frank disclosure of assets: Jameel v. Zerrouk (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 511

withdrawal of reasonable living expenses permitted if no other assets available—not necessary for freezing order to contain express condition that respondent disclose other assets, since full and frank disclosure required to assess whether living expenses reasonable: Jameel v. Zerrouk (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 511

risk of dissipation

applicant has reasonably heavy burden of showing sufficient risk that assets likely to be dissipated if order not made or continued—if funds in bank unofficially frozen by Financial Intelligence Service as suspected proceeds of crime, lifting of unofficial freeze would place at risk of dissipation—if continuing pressure to withdraw funds, formal freezing order necessary to ensure available to meet later proprietary or other claims: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 73

burden of proof on applicant challenging provision for respondent’s legitimate expenses (e.g. living expenses) to show prima facie conflict with fundamental purpose of freezing order of protection of assets from dissipation and to ensure satisfaction of subsequent judgment, but respondent to show expenses reasonable—court may order full and frank disclosure of assets: Jameel v. Zerrouk (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 511

test whether defendant likely to dissipate assets if not frozen, not whether third party likely to prevent his doing so—possibility that Financial Intelligence Service might change mind to give consent to release of funds suspected to be proceeds of crime not court’s concern: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

scope of related disclosure order

objective of freezing order to prevent abuse—court may make such orders as necessary to meet objective, if satisfied, under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) 1987, that just and convenient—to meet objective, may extend associated disclosure order beyond ambit of freezing order—to bear in mind special circumstances of small island community and need to maintain highest standards of probity for Guernsey financial services industry: Seed Intl. Ltd. v. Tracey (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 98

support of proprietary claim

not limited to support of proprietary claim—may be granted or continued even if applicant not able to show good arguable case for proprietary claim: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 73

use for foreign proceedings

“exceptional circumstances” to be shown under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Proceedings) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.1(7) before order made or continued in aid of foreign proceedings—additional and positive factors needed, depending on case, but court unwilling to lay down guidelines—powers of Guernsey courts more limited than English courts’ power to refuse order if inexpedient: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

Guernsey court may be unwilling to make or continue order if defendant has substantial disposable assets in foreign jurisdiction in which proceedings brought—suggests judgment there can be met from local funds without reliance on frozen Guernsey assets: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

Guernsey court may make freezing order in aid of foreign proceedings—“exceptional circumstances” required by Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.1(7) (necessary before interim injunction granted in the absence of Guernsey proceedings), never treated as limiting factor—irrelevant that comparable order not obtained in foreign jurisdiction: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 442

jurisdiction to be exercised with caution but not restricted to interim relief foreign court could or would grant—applicant to identify both actual or prospective foreign proceedings to be aided by application and also foreign judgment to be protected by freezing order against frustration by defendant’s dissipation of assets: Garnet Invs. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. (C.A.), 2009–10 GLR 1

variation

Injunction against foreign proceedings. See Anti-suit injunction—restraint of foreign proceedings. Anti-suit injunctions—restraint of foreign proceedings

Interlocutory injunctions

alternative to Clameur de Haro. See Clameur de Haro—raising Clameur

factors to be considered

risk in granting interlocutory injunction that successful applicant may not be successful at substantive trial, or unsuccessful respondent successful at substantive trial—in determining whether to restrain anti-suit injunction, court to take course carrying lower risk of injustice: Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. v. Conway (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 371

principles to be applied

fundamental principle that should take course involving least risk of injustice if decision reversed in substantive proceedings—to consider, inter alia, whether undue delay likely before full trial, estimated losses to be incurred by parties in that period, whether damages appropriate or affordable if decision reversed, parties’ behaviour and whether compliance with orders likely: Technocom Ltd. v. Roscomm Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 403

injunctive relief either prohibitive or mandatory—prohibitive injunction to be granted if (a) serious issue to be tried with real prospects of success; (b) damages an inadequate remedy; and (c) balance of convenience favours injunction—mandatory injunction to be granted if, additionally, applicant demonstrates strong case/offers high degree of assurance that will succeed at trial—stricter approach to balance of convenience for mandatory injunction: Old Mutual Intl. Servs. Ltd. v. Rooney (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [5]

when deciding whether to grant interlocutory injunction which renders substantive proceedings otiose, court to feel highly assured that plaintiff able to establish rights at trial—if not assured, to consider whether nonetheless appropriate to grant injunction because risk of injustice if refused would sufficiently outweigh risk of injustice if granted: Technocom Ltd. v. Roscomm Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 403

support of foreign proceedings

under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Guernsey) Law 1987, s.1(7), court may in “exceptional circumstances” grant injunction pending foreign proceedings, e.g. if dispute significantly impacts on Guernsey business, foreign proceedings expedient, and on balance of convenience injunction better than considerable uncertainty pending determination: Reid v. European Internet Capital Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 327

Jurisdiction of Guernsey court. See Anti-suit injunction—jurisdiction of Guernsey courts. Anti-suit injunction—restraint of foreign proceedings. COURTS (Court of Appeal—jurisdiction)

Mandatory injunctions. See Interlocutory injunctions—principles to be applied

Mareva injunction. See Freezing orders

Ouster order. See FAMILY LAW (Domestic violence—ouster order)

Post-judgment injunctions

ancillary disclosure order

creditor may be granted disclosure of judgment debtor’s accounts to aid enforcement of outstanding judgment if no viable alternative—ancillary order to see if previously transferred assets recoverable to pay judgment debt—preferable procedure to trouble and expense of liquidation of debtor: R.G. Ellis Ltd. v. Caxton Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 51

important for court to be able to make any ancillary order necessary to ensure effectiveness of judgment, e.g. injunction ordering disclosure of debtor’s accounts—disclosure may be restricted to specified accounts and to creditor’s advocate only, e.g. in case reveals commercially sensitive information: R.G. Ellis Ltd. v. Caxton Holdings Ltd. (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR 51

oppressive foreign proceedings

available to restrain foreign proceedings following final judgment on same matter in Guernsey court if foreign action unconscionable because respondent pursues proceedings and misleads foreign court to gain outcome refused by Guernsey court: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

available to restrain foreign proceedings following final judgment on same matter in Guernsey court if Guernsey forum conveniens and foreign action oppressive, vexatious or unconscionable, or outcome of Guernsey proceedings requires protection—may be granted even if respondent chose not to participate in Guernsey proceedings: Credit Suisse Trust Ltd. v. Nemni (Royal Ct.), 2011–12 GLR N [23]

Prohibitive injunctions. See Interlocutory injunctions—principles to be applied

Related disclosure orders. See Freezing orders—scope of related disclosure order

Respondent’s legitimate expenses. See Freezing orders—respondent’s legitimate expenses

Restraint of advocates. See ADVOCATES (Duties to client—confidentiality), (Duties to client—conflict of interest)

Restraint of foreign proceedings. See Anti-suit injunction—restraint of foreign proceedings. Anti-suit injunctions—restraint of foreign proceedings

Risk of dissipation. See Freezing orders—risk of dissipation

Variation. See Freezing orders—variation