Asset-freezing undertaking

Gwembe Valley Development Ltd (in receivership) v Koshy and others (No 4) (Ch D TLR 28 February)

The usual practice in the case of freezing injunctions given after judgment was to grant them without the additional requirement of a cross-undertaking in damages for the claimant. Ordinarily, no protection needed to be given to the defendant since, because the injunction was based on a point already decided by the court, there was no question of the injunction being reversed at a later date. However, in the present case the judge had given the defendant leave to appeal on the substantive issue on which the injunction had been granted, a point of some difficulty. If the appeal were to be allowed the defendant would be left with no redress post-appeal unless a cross-undertaking was given by the claimant.