Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[1] These proceedings are brought by originating summons which, in its final amended form, challenges the legality of a series of assignments and "addendum agreements" and seeks the following relief:
On 21 st December 2011, the court acceded to the Plaintiffs' application for a Mareva injunction, which remains in force. The basic effect of this order was, and remains, to prohibit any assignment, sale or transfer of any of the impugned assignments.
[3] Ultimately, the Plaintiffs' application for the relief set out above was unopposed. At the substantive hearing (conducted on 28 th March 2012) the court received, and duly considered, a skeleton argument submitted by counsel representing Galfis (acting by its Receiver). Furthermore, counsel attended the entirety of the hearing. The position adopted on behalf of Galfis is ascertainable from the following passages extracted from the aforementioned skeleton argument:
[See paragraphs 4 � 18 of the Statement of Claim]. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs challenge a series of assignments and closely related addendum agreements. I shall, for convenience, describe all of these as " the impugned transactions ".
[5] As appears from the foregoing, the gravamen of the Plaintiffs' case is that the impugned transactions are unlawful on the following grounds:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.