Smellie CJ
<doc> IN THE GRAND FINANCIAL SI CAUSE NO. FS BETWEEN AND D COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS RVICES DIVISION 54 OF 2009 AHMAD HAMAD ALGOSAIBI AND BROTHERS COMPANY AND INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED MAAN AL-SANEA AND OTHERS (Hereinafter called "the Maples Defendants) 1-03-1D RULING ex parte application on notice to the 5th, 21st, 23rd, 24th - the "NCADs" - for an order that Worldwide M entered on 24th July 2009 ("the WFO") (as varied by s these proceedings) shall continue as against them. dley of Mourant 8th, 29th and 43rd areya injunctive subsequent orders until after the determination I state as WFO could However, of 2010 de focused up action ple restrained on an inter parties hearing to be fixed. The outset that the same principles that required to be set in light of the Court of Appeal's judgment in this mat delivered on the 15th February, 2011), I consider that the erion is whether these six (6) defendants, all or which ded against them. (the "NCADs") may nonetheless for the basis that cause of action defendants (here rified before the tried now. ter (CICA No. 1 main issue to be have no cause of have their assets the 1st and 20th Page 1 </doc>
<doc> defendants NCADs effective defendants
Thus, in as elaborated exercised are the beneficial owners of assets which are in the and where the freezing order will be ancillary and enforcement of a prospective judgment against s. effect, the question is whether the Chabra jurisdiction (71992) WLR 294 case so in relation to these six NCADs on the basis that the 3rd and 20th possession of the incidental to the the 3rd and 20th
WLR 231) would properly be their assets could become a obtain an
I am satis- assets of t
Here, as o at paras 8 available other defen- respective defendant available for the effective enforcement of a judgment inst their parent companies, the 3rd and 20th Defendants, and that this jurisdiction may and should be exercised the NCADs. Chadwick P. observed in his judgment on behalf of the 85 - there is good reason to suppose that the NCADs so the plaintiff AHAB in the event that it obtains a and in the case - here the 3rd and 20th defendants parent companies. For instance, a judgment against may be enforceable by way of liquidation proceed that AHAB may its relation to the Court of Appeal s' assets could be judgment against which are their the 3rd and 20th dings, in which context the judgment on defendant
I am also found to defendant e assets of the NCADs would become amenable to as part of the liquidation estates respectively of satisfied that in the circumstances of the case - where be a good arguable case as pleaded against Mr. Al, including the 3rd and 20th defendants, there remains enforcement of a the 3rd and 20th if there is already Sanea and other also the risk of Page 2 </doc>
<doc> dissipation Appeal as
For all the ordering determina- tion of assets - a risk that has also been recognised by this and the Court of those reasons, I grant the relief sought by AHAB's so that the WFO shall continue against the COADs ciation of any inter parties hearing in relation to this matter. and the Court of mmons today by until after the Hon. Anthony Sr. Chief Justice March 1 2010 relief Page 3 </doc>