Griffin Underwriting Ltd v Varouxakis

A worldwide post-judgment freezing order may be granted to facilitate enforcement where the claimant has a judgment, the defendant has assets, there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation, and relief is just and convenient. The risk must be established by solid evidence, but the claimant need not identify a specific act of dissipation or show that enforcement will become wholly impossible. Unpaid judgment debt, evasiveness about assets, dishonesty, obstructive conduct and the transferability of assets may together establish the risk. Post-judgment relief is more readily granted because the law strongly favours enforcement of judgments. Where coercive freezing relief must be constituted promptly, special circumstances may justify alternative service in a Hague Convention state.

Griffin Underwriting Limited obtained judgment against Ion G. Varouxakis for US$800,000 plus interest and costs, together with judgment on liability for further damages arising from the alleged inducement of breaches of a settlement agreement concerning losses under kidnap and ransom insurance. The judgment remained unsatisfied, and enforcement proceedings were continuing in Greece.

Griffin applied without notice for a worldwide post-judgment freezing order. It relied on evidence of Mr Varouxakis’s evasiveness, alleged false statements, failure to comply with English court orders, attempts to challenge the judgments in Greece, and uncertainty concerning ownership of shares in a company owning a yacht. The court also considered whether the order and supporting evidence could be served alternatively at an address given in the Greek proceedings.

1. Freezing order requirements. The applicant had to establish a good arguable case, the existence of assets, a real risk that unjustified dealings with those assets would leave the judgment unsatisfied, and that the order was just and convenient. The first requirement was readily satisfied by the existing unsatisfied judgment and judgment on liability.
2. Post-judgment approach. A post-judgment freezing order facilitates execution by guarding against dissipation before execution takes effect. It is granted more readily after judgment because the law strongly favours enforcement and an unpaid judgment may itself support an inference of dissipation. The order does not confer a preference in insolvency and is not execution itself. The court applied the approach described in Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners [2019] EWCA Civ 219, Masri v Consolidated Contractors [2008] EWCA Civ 288 and Great Station Properties v UMS [2017] EWHC 330.
3. Risk of dissipation. Solid evidence was required. Relevant considerations included the unpaid judgment, failure to make adequate payment attempts, evasiveness or failure to disclose assets, dishonesty connected with enforcement, improper conduct before or during the litigation, the respondent’s behaviour in response to the claim, and the nature, location, liquidity and transferability of the assets. It was unnecessary to show that enforcement would become wholly impossible or to identify a particular act of dissipation. The evidence established a real current risk.
4. Just and convenient. The binding judgment and real risk of dissipation created a powerful case for relief. The defendant’s repeated non-compliance, contemptuous conduct, misleading statements and obstructive conduct outweighed the delay in seeking the order and the serious consequences of freezing relief.
5. Service. Although Greece was a Hague Convention state, the coercive nature of the order, the risk of committal for contempt, the claimant’s undertaking in damages, the urgency of the Greek proceedings and the defendant’s evasiveness constituted special circumstances justifying alternative service by registered post at the address used in the Greek proceedings, with a copy by email to his Greek lawyer. Translation into Greek was unnecessary.
6. The worldwide freezing order and the consequential service directions were granted in the terms of the amended draft order.