ICICI Bank UK Plc v Mehta & Ors

A worldwide freezing order requires both a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation established against the particular respondent. Evidence of family association, shared lawyers, or another respondent’s dishonesty does not, without more, establish that individual risk. The applicant bears the burden and that burden is not reversed by a respondent’s limited explanation.

For jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, claims against several defendants must be sufficiently closely connected to avoid irreconcilable judgments. A succession issue may be only a preliminary step where the principal subject matter is recovery under a guarantee. A non-exclusive jurisdiction clause may permit proceedings in England, and a recital cannot impose a jurisdictional requirement absent support in the operative provision.

The Bank sought continuation of worldwide freezing orders granted without notice against members of the Mehta family and associated companies. The orders supported claims under guarantees, alleged inheritance liabilities under Belgian law, and related asset-transfer claims.

Mona disputed liability, relying on her formal rejection of her father’s Belgian estate. The principal issue was whether her interest in shares in an Indian co-operative housing society amounted to movable property, so that her conduct constituted tacit acceptance of the estate. Mihir, domiciled in Belgium, challenged jurisdiction and disputed the existence of a real risk of dissipation.

The court therefore considered the merits and dissipation requirements for freezing relief, the applicable jurisdictional rules, and whether any material non-disclosure or misuse justified discharge.

1. Mona. The Bank failed to establish a good arguable case. The relevant Indian-law evidence did not support the contention that shares in the co-operative housing society were movable property. Hanuman Vitamin Foods v State of Maharashtra and Digambar Warty supported the conclusion that the transfer of such shares constituted a transfer of an interest in immovable property. The Bank’s reliance on Anita Enterprises v Belfer Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and the expert evidence based on it did not answer that question.
2. The Bank also failed to show tacit acceptance through paintings or an alleged shareholding. It did not establish a real risk of dissipation. The evidence concerning shared lawyers, family allegations, cash assets, the paintings and past transactions was speculative or insufficient. The risk had to be established separately against Mona and could not be transposed from Mihir. Delay and prolonged settlement discussions further weakened the inference of risk.
3. The alleged non-disclosures at the without-notice hearing did not justify discharge. The matters relied on were either not material, had become relevant only as the evidence developed, or had been adequately disclosed.
4. Mihir. The Bank had a good arguable case against him both as co-guarantor and as heir. The claim against him as heir was not principally a succession claim where succession was an uncontested preliminary step in recovering a guarantee debt. Article 8(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation therefore applied, and the claims were sufficiently connected with those against the English-domiciled defendants. The same result followed under the common-law gateway if the Regulation did not apply. England was clearly the more appropriate forum.
5. The Bank established a real risk of dissipation against Mihir. His recent conviction for forgery and money laundering, alleged misleading statements concerning the estate, and alleged interference with payments under pledges provided evidence directed to him personally. The existence of pledged receivables and the disputed value of the Malabar House interest did not remove that risk.
6. The freezing order was discharged as against Mona and continued as against Mihir.

This was a first-instance decision on the return date of an application for continuation of worldwide freezing orders granted without notice.