Tarnjit Singh Gill & Anor v Jagjit Kaur & Anor

When supporting foreign proceedings, the High Court may continue a proprietary injunction under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, section 25, where the ordinary interim-relief requirements are met and relief is not inexpedient.

The court applies a two-stage inquiry: whether the facts would warrant equivalent relief if the substantive proceedings had been brought in England, and whether the absence of ordinary jurisdiction makes relief inexpedient. A proprietary injunction does not require a direct proprietary claim to the assets or a direct cause of action against the respondent. The court must consider the risk of dissipation, adequacy of damages, the balance of convenience, comity, overlap with foreign orders and enforceability.

The claimants sought continuation until 31 July 2025 of a proprietary injunction over shares in West Properties Holdings Limited. The injunction had been granted under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of derivative proceedings in Delaware.

The underlying proceedings concerned an alleged misappropriation of the shares after the company owning them was struck off in the Isle of Man. The Delaware court had appointed receivers, who were taking steps to restore that company and recover the shares. The respondent, who had notice of the hearing and the opportunity to attend remotely, did not attend or provide evidence. The central issues were whether the requirements for proprietary interim relief remained satisfied and whether continuation was inexpedient because the substantive proceedings were abroad.

1. The application was granted. The proprietary injunction was extended to 31 July 2025. A further hearing was directed shortly before that date, if required. The claimants were awarded their costs, summarily assessed at £71,850 on the standard basis.
2. Under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the court adopted the two-stage approach summarised in Royal Bank of Scotland v FAL Oil Co Limited [2012] EWHC 3628 (Comm). It first asked whether the facts would warrant the relief if the substantive proceedings had been brought in England. It then considered whether the absence of ordinary jurisdiction made relief inexpedient.
3. The requirements for a proprietary injunction under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 25.1, were satisfied. There was a serious issue to be tried, damages were inadequate, and the balance of convenience or justice favoured relief. The evidence strongly suggested misappropriation and a risk that the shares or the company’s assets could be placed beyond recovery.
4. A direct proprietary claim to the assets was unnecessary. Nor was a direct cause of action against the respondent required. The court relied on Koza Ltd v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS [2021] 1 WLR 170, Re Ravenhart Service (Holdings) [2004] 2 BCLC 376 and HMRC v Egleton [2007] Bus LR 44.
5. Continuation was expedient. The order did not interfere with the Delaware proceedings, conflict with foreign relief, create material disharmony or involve an unenforceable order. The respondent was resident in England and committal proceedings were available as an effective sanction. The absence of material change, together with continuing non-cooperation and non-compliance, justified continuation.