Undergraduate Awards 2012: Law
the loophole was reduced without reference to
; thecourt basing its power on the predecessor
to s 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, asthe court h
eld it was “just and convenient” to grant a freezing order on the facts.
International Bulkcarriers Ltd
was the second case to grant an order to freezeassets in anticipation of dissipation, and became the eponym of the doctrine whichevolved rapidly thereafter.
was referred to the court but was not fatal (neitherwas it settled as bad authority as Roskill J was concerned it may have had greaterinfluence at an
hearing, however the doctrine survived an
hearing in the
). Lord Denning again based the court’s power to
grant the order on its inherent jurisdiction under s 37(1), limiting its reach to foreignbased defendants. Although this limitation appears curious, it has been suggestedthat a broader rule would have risked rejection by higher authorities.
The next hurdle to jump was the procedural point deployed in
whichestablished that a
injunction could only be granted where there was a causeof action within the jurisdiction. Whilst relief was not granted in the case, thesurvival of the principal generally was an achievement nonetheless.Further expansion of the principle occurred when it was decided that it was possibleto grant a
injunction against both a foreign based defendant and a defendantwithin the jurisdiction.
The latter was included to prevent the possibility ofdefendants collaborating with others within a jurisdiction who could transfer theirassets to another jurisdiction to stultify judgement.
 1 WLR 1093
Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, s 45(1)
 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509
 QB 644 (CA)
David Capper, “The
From Birth to Adulthood” in E. O’Dell (ed),
The LeadingCases of the Twentieth Century
(Round Hall, 2000) 260
 AC 210 (CA and HL)
 1 All ER 205 (CA);
 3 All ER 190 (ChD);
 1 WLR 1268 (CA)
See n 9, 263