Severstal Export GmbH v Bhushan Steel Ltd

Severstal Export GmbH (the applicant) sought a freezing order against Bhushan Steel Ltd (the respondent) under rule 25.14 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW). The applicant's claim arose from foreign proceedings, and the primary judge had granted the freezing order. The respondent appealed this decision.

The appeal raised several legal issues concerning the interpretation and application of rule 25.14 in the context of foreign proceedings. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the primary judge had correctly assessed the likelihood of a prospective judgment being unsatisfied, and whether the primary judge had erred in finding that there was a danger that such a judgment would be unsatisfied.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing the grant of freezing orders under rule 25.14, particularly in circumstances where the underlying proceedings are foreign. The court affirmed that a key requirement for such an order is proof of a real risk that a judgment, if obtained, would be rendered unsatisfied. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of this risk, concluding that the evidence supported the conclusion that there was a danger of the prospective judgment being unsatisfied.

The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.