Haederle v Thomas

An injunction enforced by committal must state clearly and unambiguously what the respondent must or must not do. That requirement applies even where the intended meaning would be obvious to a person familiar with the relevant legal practice. A worldwide freezing order containing a material omission in the financial limit applicable to dealings with assets outside England and Wales was therefore too uncertain to support committal proceedings in respect of those assets.

The proceedings arose from committal applications alleging breaches of a worldwide freezing order made in support of a judgment on an unfair-prejudice petition concerning Vantage Point Europe Limited. The order prohibited dealings with the respondent’s assets, wherever situated, up to £560,000. Its provision permitting dealings with non-English assets omitted the figure following the pound sign.

The applicant argued that the omission was an obvious clerical error which should be corrected by construction. The respondent contended that the order was ineffective, for committal purposes, in relation to his non-English assets. The preliminary issue was whether the defective wording permitted committal proceedings based on dealings with those assets.

1. The preliminary issue was determined in favour of the respondent. The freezing order could not support committal allegations concerning non-English assets under the defective provision.

2. An injunction, particularly one enforced by committal, must be clear and precise so that the respondent knows exactly what conduct is prohibited or required. The court applied the principles illustrated by Iberian Trust Ltd v Founders Trust and Investment Co [1932] 2 KB 87, P. A. Thomas & Co v Mould [1968] 2 QB 913 and Hussain v Hussain [1986] Fam 134 (CA).

3. Although paragraph 4(2) prohibited dealings with worldwide assets up to £560,000, paragraph 7(2) omitted the figure governing dealings with non-English assets. The order was therefore materially unclear.

4. The possible availability of correction under CPR rule 40.12 or amendment under CPR rule 3.1(7) did not cure the defect for committal purposes.