- within Transport, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment and Family and Matrimonial topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
The decision analyses the English court's jurisdiction to grant Chabra relief against respondents outside the jurisdiction.
The High Court has discharged a worldwide freezing order (WFO) granted against respondents in Spain on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction over them. Despite finding that the claimants had a good claim in principle to Chabra relief against the respondents, the court held that none of the service out gateways relied on applied: Gilbert v Broadoak Private Finance Ltd [2026] EWHC 153 (KB).
The Chabra jurisdiction, established in the case of TSB Bank v Chabra [1992] 1 WLR 231, may be exercised where there is good reason to suppose that assets held in the name of a third party would be available to satisfy a judgment against the defendant – typically (though not exclusively) where those assets are beneficially owned by the defendant.
Where respondents to an application for Chabra relief are outside the jurisdiction, a claimant will need the court's permission to serve the application on them. To obtain permission, the claimant will need to show that: (i) the application has a reasonable prospect of success; (ii) the application satisfies at least one of the jurisdictional gateways in CPR PD 6B, paragraph 3.1; and (iii) England and Wales is the proper place to bring the application (the forum conveniens).
As this case demonstrates, claimants may face difficulties in obtaining Chabra relief against respondents outside the jurisdiction where the claim between the claimant and main (or "anchor") defendant has concluded and a final judgment has been entered, so that the "necessary or proper party" gateway cannot be relied on. The court noted that there appear to be no cases where the court has granted permission to serve an application for Chabra relief out of the jurisdiction by reference to any other gateway.
The court recognised that it may seem harsh that the claimants had no route to establish jurisdiction where they had a good claim in principle. It commented, however, citing Commercial Bank of Dubai v Al Sari [2024] EWHC 3304 (Comm): "if there is to be a general power to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction to assist the enforcement of an English judgment debt, that is a matter for the Rules Committee".
The decision further illustrates the importance of the duty of fair presentation and the duty of full and frank disclosure when making without notice applications. Applicants should ensure they undertake proper enquiries and investigate both the facts and legal arguments relied on before making an application.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
