Insights: Publications Significant Shift in Proof to Obtain Interim Injunction in the Common Law Countries
The court in American Cyanide Co. (No. 1) v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) UKHL 1, established guidelines for when courts should grant interim injunctions. There, an American company, American Cyanide, claimed a British company, Ethicon Ltd. was infringing on its patent for absorbable surgical sutures. The court set forth as one of the requirements to impose an injunction that there must be a serious matter to be tried.
In Dos Santos v. United SA (2024) EWCA Civ. 1109, an Angolan billionaire appealed an order freezing her assets as a part of a lawsuit seeking repayment of loans. The Court of Appeal recently addressed the meaning of the requirement of a “serious matter to be tried”. The court found this element should be equated to a “good arguable case”. The court noted that “(t)his is not a demanding test, and it really only serves to exclude the case where the claim is frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise demonstrably bad.”
Thus, the threshold question in freezing injunction applications is now a lesser standard-- “good arguable case”. Creditors have an enhanced opportunity to freeze assets in the UK and common law countries.
Related People
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
