CMOC v Persons Unknown

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for a worldwide freezing injunction against persons unknown. The claim arises from an alleged fraud involving unauthorized access to the email account of a senior management member of the Plaintiff, which led to fraudulent payment instructions being sent from the Plaintiff's bank account at the Bank of China in London. These instructions resulted in multiple large payments totaling approximately £6.3 million being transferred to various banks internationally. The identity of the perpetrators remains unknown. The application was supported by detailed skeleton arguments and affidavits from two witnesses, and the court considered relevant provisions of the applicable order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant relief, including service of claim forms, against persons unknown.
2. Whether a freezing injunction can be granted against persons unknown in the context of fraud.
3. The appropriateness of service out of the jurisdiction on foreign entities, including banks.
4. Whether the jurisdictional gateway for service out of the jurisdiction is satisfied under the tort or restitutionary heads.
5. Whether this jurisdiction is clearly the more appropriate forum for the claim.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bloomsbury v. News Group Newspaper [2003] EWHC 1205	Confirmed court's jurisdiction to grant injunctions against persons unknown provided the description is sufficiently certain.	Used to establish that interlocutory injunctions can be granted against persons unknown, supporting the principle's extension to freezing injunctions.
Hampshire Waste Services [2003] EWHC 1738	Reiterated the principle allowing injunctions against persons unknown.	Supported the reasoning that freezing injunctions can be extended to persons unknown.
Bankers Trust v. Shapira	Jurisdiction to order disclosure of documents by banks in support of claims.	Supported the court's jurisdiction to order banks to provide information critical to tracing the fraudulently transferred funds.
CPR 25.1(1)(g)	Provision allowing the court to order disclosure of documents.	Used to justify orders for information from banks.
Recast Brussels Regulation, Article 7.2	Regulates service of documents within the EU.	Applied to service on banks within the EU, subject to procedural compliance.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by addressing jurisdiction over persons unknown, relying on established case law confirming that injunctions can be granted against such defendants if the description is sufficiently certain. It found that the description of defendants in the claim form met this requirement by referencing involvement in the fraud and specific bank transfers. The court reasoned there is no principled reason to exclude freezing injunctions from this approach, noting their critical role in fraud litigation for preserving assets and enabling further ancillary relief.

Regarding service out of the jurisdiction, the court identified a good arguable case under the tort gateway because the damage (loss of funds) occurred within the jurisdiction. It also considered alternative service on recipient banks appropriate, facilitating notification and enforcement. The court was satisfied that the jurisdiction was clearly the most appropriate forum, as the funds were taken from a bank account located within this jurisdiction.

The court made amendments to the draft order to allow for living and legal expenses to be paid until the return date, despite the freezing of assets. It also confirmed that the provision of information obligations against defendants would be triggered by service or by drawing the order to their attention. Orders were granted against banks for disclosure of documents to trace the misappropriated funds, justified under established principles and procedural rules. The court addressed service on foreign banks as necessary and proper parties to the claim, applying relevant international regulations for service within the EU.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the application for a worldwide freezing injunction against persons unknown, with amendments to the order concerning living expenses and information disclosure provisions.

The order includes provisions for alternative service on recipient banks and compels banks to provide information to assist in identifying the defendants and tracing the misappropriated funds. The court confirmed jurisdiction over persons unknown in the context of freezing injunctions and affirmed this jurisdiction as the clearly appropriate forum given the location of the misappropriated funds.

No new precedent was established, but the decision reinforces and extends existing principles to freezing injunctions against persons unknown in fraud cases.