³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

View the related practice notes about Interim remedy

Interim measures in support of arbitration in Brazil

Interim measures in support of arbitration in Brazil Interim measures in Brazil are regulated by the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (Federal Law No 13.105/2015 (BCCP)), which sets out various types of available interim measures, each of them applicable to specific reliefs sought, with a general purpose to ensure the effectiveness of a final decision, either judicial or arbitral. Also, the Brazilian Arbitration Act (BAA), which regulates arbitration in Brazil (Federal Law No 9307/96), provides that before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal the parties of the arbitration may request for interim measures before the courts. After the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the BAA grants the arbitral tribunal the exclusive power to grant any request for interim measures and also maintain, modify or revoke the interim measures granted by the courts. The legal requirements for interim remedies are essentially the same in the context of arbitration or in judicial proceedings. As a consequence, the general legal landscape provided in the BCCP may serve as guidance for...

Freezing orders in employee competition claims

Freezing orders in employee competition claims Freezing orders were formerly known as Mareva injunctions, named after the claimant in one of the first cases in which such an injunction was granted. A freezing order is an injunction that prevents a defendant from removing any assets from the jurisdiction (ie England and Wales) and/or from dealing with their assets, whether within the jurisdiction or (in suitable cases) elsewhere. The purpose in granting such a freezing injunction is to ensure that the defendant's assets are preserved so that in the event the claimant obtains judgment against the defendant, the defendant's assets are available to enable the claimant to recover damages and costs. A freezing order may therefore be appropriate in a case where there is credible evidence that a defendant is likely to dissipate their assets to defeat a damages claim against him. In an employee competition scenario, it is unlikely that such an order would be sought unless there is an allegation of fraud against one or...

View the related q&as about Interim remedy

Does an order for security for costs operate to stay the proceedings?

Does an order for security for costs operate to stay the proceedings? Security for costs In litigation, the usual position in relation to costs is that the losing party will be ordered to pay the other side's recoverable costs. Such costs may be substantial, especially when dealing with cases involving a foreign element which gives rise to additional costs, eg travel, expert evidence on law, etc. While a defendant may be confident of their ability to defend the claim, they may nevertheless have concerns about potential difficulties in seeking to recover costs provided for in any costs order against the claimant. The purpose of a security for costs order, an interim remedy, is to alleviate that concern by requiring the claimant to pay money into court, or to provide some other form of security, as a precondition to being able to continue with the claim. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretion. Prior to making an...