Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:43:35.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scottish Arrestment and the English Freezing Order1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Richard Aird
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This comparison involves the study of two very different forms of remedy. These are the Scottish Arrestment and the English Freezing Order.2 The Freezing Order is a relatively recent common law creation which contains features unusual amongst Convention jurisdictions. The continental origins of the Arrestment over 400 years ago, and its existence in a jurisdiction based upon the Civil Law unaltered by the Code Napoleon, have given rise to a remedy which is a member of the same family as its continental equivalents but different again. Indeed as we shall see, these measures are so different that most of the possible features of remedies of their type lie in the contrast.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 155 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The author gratefully acknowledges suggestions made by Professor Bridge of Exeter University and Professor Maher of Scottish Law Commission.

2 This article is primarily concerned with the Arrestment on the Dependence which is abbreviated to ‘the Arrestment’. To assist comprehension the Arrestment and the Freezing Order are simplified and described in more universal legal language than would normally be applied to their domestic audiences.

3 See Buckland, , A Textbook on Roman Law, 3rd edn (1963), 623.Google Scholar

4 Lectures on Conveyancing and Legal Diligence, Walter Ross, 2nd edn, 449.

5 College of Justice Act 1532 (C2).

6 See Graham Stewart, Law of Diligence, 14.

7 See Ross, op cit 453.

8 Ross, op cit 1455.

9 Graham Stewart above 14.

10 Page 13.

11 See Felton and Anr v Kallis 1969 1 QB 200.

12 See Rasu Maratima SA v Perusahaan (The Petramina) 1977 3 All ER 324; ‘Freezing Assets’ Bushell International Business Lawyer (Jan 2000).

13 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 37(2)(a).

14 (1975) 1 WLR 1093.

15 (1975) 2 Lloyd's Rep 509.

16 Denning, Lord, The Due Process of Law (London: Butterworths, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 CPR25.1(l.g).

18 And the Saisie Conservatoire—European Civil Practice, O'Malley & Layton, Sweet & Maxwell 1989, 50.59.

19 See Anglo-Italian Bank v Wells 1878 38 LT 197 at 198.

20 See Nippon Yusen Kaisha 1975 1 WRR; Mareva Campania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA 1975 2 Lloyd's Rep 509.

21 SI 1984 No. 499.

22 See RSC 13.2 & OCR 3.3.

23 Admiralty Arrestments are an exception in that the Arrestment is ‘a real diligence directed against the ship itself so the ship may be arrested whilst in the possession of the respondent. See Carlberg v Borjesson 1877 5 R188 per Lord Shand at 195.

24 See Scot Law Comm, op cit, para 2.4 and Creswell v Colquhoun 1987 SLT 329.

25 See Maclaren, Expenses 116.

26 Stewart, 133.

27 Scot Law Com No 164.

28 See para 4.88.

29 See para 3.45.

30 Ibid.

31 See para 3.71.

32 See para 4.88.

33 See para 4.101.

34 Para 3.111.

35 See para 3.63.

36 See Polly Peck International v Nadir (No. 2) 1992 4 All ER 769, at 785.

37 See Iraqi Ministry of Defence and Ors v Arcepey Shipping Company SA 1981 QB 65.

38 See Costain Building & Civil Engineering Ltd v Scottish Rugby Union pic 1993 SC 650.

39 See Tweedie v Tweedie 1996 SLT N 89.

40 See A.J. Bechor & Co Ltd v Bilton 1981 1 QB 923, 940.

41 See House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite 1985 FSR 173 CA.

42 See A v C 1981 QB 956.

43 See eg Chase-Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] CH 105; Bankers Trust Co v Shapira & Ors [1980] 1 WLR 1274.

44 See Fenon and Anr v Kallis supra.

45 See Fenon and Anr v Kallis supra; and Allied Bank Ltd v Hajjar & Ors [1988] QB 787.

46 See Bayer v Winter Order (No. 1) [1986] 1 All ER 733.

47 See O'Malley, and Layton, : European Civil Practice 51.59: Pre-emptive Remedies in Europe: Rose, Longman 1992, 118.Google Scholar

48 CPR 25.1C and s 1, Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972.

49 See Standard Chartered Bank v Walker [1992] 1 WLR 561.

50 See CBS United Kingdom Ltd v Lambert & Another [1983] 1 Ch 37 CA.Google Scholar

51 See West Cumberland Farmers Ltd v Ellon Hinengo Ltd 1988 SLT 294.Google Scholar

52 Para 2.22.

53 See Nimemia Maritime Corporation v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft G.H. und Co KG [1983] 1 WLR 1412 CA.Google Scholar

54 See p 155.

55 Scot Law Comm 2.23.

56 Stair Encyclopaedia, vol 8, 303.

57 See Stewart, , 196–203, Tweedie v Tweedie 1966 SLT Notes 89, Henderson v George Outram Publishers & Co Ltd 1993 SLT 824.Google Scholar

58 Dundee Magistrates v Tail & Grant 1863 1M 701. Cf Taylor Woodrow v Sears Investment Trust Ltd 1991 SC 140.

59 Levy v Gardiner 1964 SLT (Notes 68).

60 Conoco Speciality Products (Inc) v Merpro Montassa Ltd No. 2 1991 SLT 225.

61 Interconnection Systems Ltd v Holland 1994 SLT 777.

62 Conoco above.

62a Rintoul Alexander & Co v Bannatyne 1862 IM 137.

63 Hydraload Research & Developments Ltd v Bone Cornell & Baxters Ltd 1996 SLT 219.

64 See Coreck Maritime GmbH v Sevrybokholodflot 1994 SLT 893, Taymech Ltd v Rush & Tompkins Ltd 1990 SLT.

64a eg, the claim has been met.

65 Grant v Magistrates of Airdrie 1939 SC 738, Dramggate Ltd v Tyne Dock Engineering 1999 SCLR 1 (upheld on appeal 1 Oct 1999).

66 Massarella v Murray 1897 5 SLT 68.

67 Notman v Commercial Bank of Scotland 1938 SC 522.

68 Scot Law Com 3.63.

69 Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms) SI 2000 41. The costs of raising the action, ie the Summons & Warrant are in addition.

70 See Aird, and Jameson, , The Scots Dimension to Cross Border Litigation (Green/Sweet & Maxwell, 1996) 18.22.Google Scholar

71 See Scot Law Comm. 3.55 and 3.63, and pp 10 and 18 above.

72 See Allen & Ors v Jambo Holdings Ltd & Ors [1980] 1 WLR 1252.

73 See Swedac Ltdv Magnet & Southern plc [1989] 1 FSR 243, 251.

74 Per Harman, J, Lock International plc v Beswick [1989] WLR 1268.Google Scholar

75 Park, and Cromie, , International Commercial Litigation, Buller & Wattis, 2nd edn, 341. Forum Shopping (Van Lyden, 1988), 103.Google Scholar

76 And see p 156.

77 See Scot Law Comm op cit, 2.81, 2.83.

78 See Stewart 1898, 141 and Stair, Encyclopaedia, 289.

79 See Stewart 365, 366, Stair, Encyclopaedia, 290.

80 See, eg, GL Gretton, ‘Diligence, Trusts and Floating Charges’ 1981 26 JLSS 57; JB St Clair and EJ Drummond Young, ‘The Law of Corporate Insolvency in Scotland’, 2nd edn 1992; Scot Law Comm para 915.

81 Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1995 Section 37(4); Insolvency Act 1986 Section 185(l)(a).

82 See Stair op cit, para 292 and cases cited.

83 See Commercial Aluminium Windows Ltd v Cumbernauld Development Corporation 1987 SLT (Sh.Ct.) 91.

84 See Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management Ltd 1978 1 WLR 966.

85 See O'Malley and Layton, op cit 51.59: Rose, op cit, 128.

86 See Stewart v Royal Bank of Scotland 1994 (Sh.Ct.) 27; McNairn v McNairn 1959 SLT Notes 35; Anton: Private International Law, 1st edn (1976) 112 and cases referred to Maher and Cusine, The Law and Practice of Diligence (1990, 5.06. Aird and Jameson, Scots Dimension to Cross Border Litigation 18.11.

87 Law and Practice of Diligence, 5.06.

88 Form 13.2A.

89 Form 16.15B.

90 C-391/95 (17 Nov 1998) and Hans-Hermann Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV C-99/96 27 April 1999 and see Maher and Rodger op cit, 308.

91 See Republic of Haiti v Duvalier [1990] QB 202.

92 See Babanaft Co SA v Bassante & Ors 1990 Ch 13.

93 See CPR Part 25.

94 Arbitration Act 1996; Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997 SI 1997 302; and see Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Provisional and Protective Measures (Scotland)) Order 1997 SI 1997 2780.

95 27(2)(a).

96 Credit Suisse v Cuoghi [1998] QB 818.

97 Refco Inc v Eastern Trading Co 1991 1 Lloyds Rep. 159, Union Carbide v BP Chemicals 1995 SLT 972.

98 The phrase is derived from the eighteenth-century use of the word.

99 Application No. 7990/77.

100 Ser A No 52 Judgment 23 Sept 1982 5 EHRR 35, E Ct HR.

101 See Scot Law Comm, 2.67.

102 Practice Direction to CPR (Part 25).

103 Scot Law Comm No 164, 3.26/7.

104 Ibid, 3.45.

105 See generally p 13 above.

106 For example the ultimate failure of a justified action will not apparently give rise to a liability for indemnity or expenses.

107 Scot Law Comm, No 164, 3.111.

108 International Commercial Litigation: Cromie, 2nd edn, pp 340 and 343.