#36 Bells Angels: an exception

This week, Luke and Calum discuss the English Commercial Court case of Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Irfan Iqbal Puri [2022] EWHC 2113 (Comm). World-wide freezing orders draw a lot of attention. When obtained, they can have a drastic impact on a defendant. A freezer does what it says. It maintains the status quo over a defendant's assets and prevents dissipation, while an underlying substantive claim is resolved and ultimately paid. However, there are typically exceptions in the order. One exception is that the defendant can continue to pay legal costs from its assets notwithstanding the freezer (something Luke knows well from another case he handled). Another exception - the Angel Bell exception - allows the defendant to continue to use its assets in the usual course of business. The question here is whether the Angel Bell exception should continue to be part of a freezing order (in the circumstances of this case), after the underlying claim has crystallised into a judgment against the defendant and before the debt has been paid. Does obtaining a judgment change the dynamic? Listen in for a healthy exploration of the topic, along with a few tangents on freezing orders more broadly.