Court considers correct currency of judgment and issues relating to freezing order
Various issues fell to be considered by the judge in this case, including the following:
1) What currency should the judgment be made in? Reference was made to the decision of The Despina R [1979], in which it was said that a claimant "who normally conducts his business through a particular currency, and who, when other currencies are immediately involved, uses his own currency to obtain those currencies, can reasonably say that the loss he sustains is to be measured not by the immediate currencies in which the loss first emerges but by the amount of his own currency, which in the normal course of operation, he uses to obtain those currencies". However, it was held that there is no hard and fast rule to that effect. In this case, although the claimant generally used the Kazakhstani Tenge, the monies which it had lost were borrowed in US Dollars and Euros and so those were the appropriate currencies for the judgment.
2) Was it appropriate to continue the cross-undertaking in damages contained in a freezing order post-judgment? The judge held that it was, pending a determination by the Court of Appeal of an application for permission to appeal.
3) Should the exceptions in the freezing order allowing expenditure on living and legal expenses and ordinary business dealings be continued post-judgment? The judge held that they should. The defendant should be allowed to pay his debts (both current and future) from his assets unless and until enforcement against his assets (although the defendant was required to provide further evidence regarding his assets).
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.