> England introduced the freezing orders in 1981, and by 1998 a [English] judge had ruled that they had global reach.
> Since then, English [global] freezing orders, backed by international respect for England’s courts and London’s centrality as a financial hub, have become unparalleled in power and reach, experts say. The orders can be applied to an individual target with even a loose link to Britain, and courts have ruled they can also apply to connected companies, trusts and associates anywhere in the world.
The implication that countries are complying with this unilateral expansion of English jurisdiction because of "international respect" is laughable. The US even passed the SPEECH act [1] specifically to prevent libel tourism using English courts [2].
2 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 12.5 ms ] thread> Since then, English [global] freezing orders, backed by international respect for England’s courts and London’s centrality as a financial hub, have become unparalleled in power and reach, experts say. The orders can be applied to an individual target with even a loose link to Britain, and courts have ruled they can also apply to connected companies, trusts and associates anywhere in the world.
The implication that countries are complying with this unilateral expansion of English jurisdiction because of "international respect" is laughable. The US even passed the SPEECH act [1] specifically to prevent libel tourism using English courts [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...