The High Court has handed down judgment at the interim stage in the case of Cancrie Investments v. Haider.  George Hayman KC and Duncan McCombe represented the Claimant, who was successful in having its worldwide freezing injunction continued and in resisting applications to strike out the claim and/or for reverse summary judgment. The judgment engages with the following interesting points with both procedural and substantive significance:

• The test for good arguable case in the context of freezing injunctions (it is the traditional Niedersachsen test). In this regard, see also the recent Maitland case of Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Ford [2024] EWCA Civ 959.
• The differences between the tests for strike out and summary judgment.
• The scope of the principle in Vallée v Dumergue and the extent to which consent to disputes in a particular jurisdiction also amounts to consent to the service rules of that jurisdiction for the purposes of the requirements of natural justice even where there has been no actual notice of proceedings.

George and Duncan are instructed by Fraser Mitchell and Benjamin Smith of Lewis Silkin LLP

The judgment can be found here.