Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis and another [1975] 3 All ER 282 !

A "arties Pf: Nippon, big shipowners; Df: George Karageorgis and John Karageorgis, charterers #aterial $a%ts& !ause o' A%tion (The big shipowners of Japan, Nippon Yusen Kaisha, entered into charterparties with two gentlemen, r George Karageorgis and r John Karageorgis! Three ships were let on charter to those two gentlemen, one on a "o#age charter and two on time charters! The hire was pa#able b# the charterers! $The charterers relied on good contracts b# law with Peru! %ut unfortunatel# things ha"e not gone as was anticipated! r George Karageorgis and r John Karageorgis ha"e not paid the charterpart# hire! $The# said that the# transmitted it to New Yor&, but the mone# has ne"er been recei"ed! $'ttempts to find the two essrs Karageorgis ha"e not succeeded! (t is said their office in Piraeus is closed, but the plaintiffs belie"e, and rightl# belie"e, that the# ha"e funds with ban&s here in )ondon! $The plaintiffs fear that the mone#s in those ban&s ma# be transmitted out of the *urisdiction unless something is done to retain them there! +o the# appl# for an interim in*unction against r George Karageorgis and r John Karageorgis to restrain them from disposing of or remo"ing an# of their assets which are in this *urisdiction outside it! $This was an appeal b# the plaintiffs against the refusal of Donaldson J to grant an e, parte application for the appointment of a recei"er in respect of mone#s, propert# and other sums held b# the defendants within the *urisdiction or for an in*unction to restrain the defendants from disposing of or dealing with an# of their assets within the *urisdiction! )ssues: -hether the in*unction should be continued. *e%ision+ Appeal allo,ed.ord *enning #R+ $'n in*unction of this &ind has ne"er been done before! (t has ne"er been the practice of the /nglish courts to sei0e assets of a defendant in ad"ance of *udgment, or to restrain the disposal of them! 1owe"er, the time has come when we should re"ise our practice! There is no reason wh# the 1igh 2ourt or this court should not ma&e an order such as is as&ed for here! (t is warranted b# s 34 of the +upreme 2ourt of Judicature 52onsolidation6 'ct 7894 which sa#s the 1igh 2ourt ma# grant a mandamus or in*unction or appoint a recei"er b# an interlocutor# order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be *ust or con"enient so to do! This is *ust such a case! $There is a strong prima facie case that the hire is owing and unpaid! (f an in*unction is not granted, these mone#s ma# be remo"ed out of the *urisdiction and the shipowners will ha"e the greatest difficult# in reco"ering an#thing! $(t seems plain that the in*unction should be continued on this e, parte application and should be continued until after *udgment in these proceedings, to restrain the defendants from disposing of their assets here! :n notice being gi"en, the ban&s, of course, will not part with the mone#! (f the defendants wish to challenge this order, the# can, of course, appl# to discharge it, if the# ha"e grounds for doing so!