The Court held that the plaintiff's application for a freezing order over the defendant's assets was dismissed because, although the plaintiff had established a good arguable case on its breach of subcontract claim, it failed to establish the second jurisdictional requirement — a real or substantial danger that a prospective judgment would be wholly or partly unsatisfied — where the asserted risk of dissipation rested on speculative inferences about intragroup transfers to a related entity.
The full text is available to signed-in members.