GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh

Under section 25 of the Civil Judgments and Jurisdiction Act 1982, an English court may grant protective relief over assets within England despite a worldwide order made by a foreign court. An overlapping order requires cogent reasons showing an extra, justifiable and valuable benefit. The foreign court remains primary, and the English court’s role is subordinate and supportive. On a letter of request, production may be ordered only for particular documents sufficiently specified and likely to be within the respondent’s possession, custody or power. Requests for information, conjectural documents and fishing expeditions fall outside the court’s power. A bank’s consent cannot enlarge that statutory power.

The claimant sought assistance in English proceedings under section 25 of the Civil Judgments and Jurisdiction Act 1982 in support of proceedings in the Dubai International Financial Centre. The DIFC Court had granted a worldwide freezing order concerning an alleged invoice fraud and had issued a letter of request seeking banking documents from the Co-operative Bank and NatWest.

The claimant applied for an interim English freezing order over assets within the jurisdiction and for orders requiring the banks to provide the requested material. The issues were whether an overlapping English order would confer a sufficient additional benefit and whether the letter of request identified documents with the required particularity.

1. The court granted an interim freezing order. There was a good arguable case on the alleged invoice fraud and sufficient evidence of a risk of dissipation.
2. A foreign worldwide order did not prevent an English order concerning assets in England. However, an overlapping order required cogent reasons showing an extra, justifiable and valuable benefit. It was insufficient merely to rely on the banks’ amenability to a domestic order or to say that the English order would do no harm. The foreign court remained primary, and the English court’s role was subordinate and supportive.
3. Cogent reasons existed because the DIFC order bound the defendant personally but did not prevent the banks from complying with instructions to remove assets, and because there had been significant delay in disclosure with evidence of unidentified assets.
4. The letter of request had to be narrowed. Requests for ownership information, transaction histories and payment destinations sought information rather than particular documents, or were insufficiently specific and conjectural. They therefore fell foul of the prohibition on fishing expeditions.
5. The court ordered production of account-opening forms, signature mandates, identity documents supplied to the banks, and bank statements for the relevant period. It refused requests for ledgers and inter-account payment instructions. The banks’ consent could not confer a statutory power which the court did not possess.