In Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Yu, the Court of Appeal had to determine what is meant by “a real risk of dissipation”. It also had to consider whether the Deputy High Court Judge misunderstood the test by applying too high a threshold when refusing to grant a post-judgment freezing injunction.
In a 1916 case decided in the House of Lords (John Russell and Company Ltd v. Cayzer Irvine and Company Ltd (John Russell)), the plaintiff sought damages after its goods were placed in the care of first one and then (without the plaintiff’s consent) another Scottish-domiciled shipping company, resulting in the goods being lost at the bottom of the ocean near Calcutta, when the ship carrying them was sunk by a German cruiser. The plaintiff sued both companies. The first Scottish defendant voluntarily consented to service of the claim on it and agreed to be sued in England, apparently thinking it convenient. The second defendant was less amenable and refused to submit to the English court’s jurisdiction.
This may be one of the hottest debate points of 2021/2. In my opinion, the answer is yes, the new Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR), which officially came into force on 1 October 2021, are retrospective and within the marketplace, it is openly known that some predominantly paying party firms seem to be of the same opinion.
