Held, application granted. The test of a good arguable case in relation to jurisdiction was not a merits test but related to the issue of whether there was an available gateway. Since it was directed to a different thing, there was no reason why that test should be applied as the merits test in relation to freezing orders. In any event, to apply it in the context of freezing orders would involve a relative assessment of the parties’ positions, which would draw the parties and the court into the conduct of mini trials and put the merits bar too high to serve the interests of justice. The test to be applied was whether the case was better than arguable, even if it could not be said with confidence that the applicant was more likely to be right than wrong. In the present case a notification injunction would be granted, the claimants having shown a case which passed the threshold of good arguability, a real risk of dissipation, and that, in the circumstances, it would be just and convenient to grant the relief sought (paras 21, 23, 25–26, 38–39, 51, 62).

Per curiam. In considering whether there is a risk of unjustified dissipation of assets, it was an established principle that the allegations made in the substantive case may be a basis for concluding that there is a risk of unjustified dissipation by the respondent. However, the case law did not support an approach that the court can or should form a general impression of the respondent and if it is adverse conclude that there is a risk of dissipation, and still less that a “feeling of uneasiness” about a respondent or its standards of morality are sufficient for such a conclusion (para 41).