For a bank to be sued for breach of trust after receipt of funds, it was not necessary to show that the bank knew of the fraud, but rather that it knew the funds were trust funds, and that they were being misapplied. A Mareva injunction should be issued against a bank only after great care. It would affect the operation of the bank. An application should normally be by way of a tracing claim rather than a Mareva injunction.
Citations:
Independent 31-Mar-1993, Unreported, 17 March 1993
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Polly Peck International Plc v Nadir (No 2) CA 19-Mar-1992
Appeal against the grant of a Mareva injunction.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘I therefore turn to the principles underlying the jurisdiction. (1) So far as it lies in their power, the Courts will not permit the course of justice to be frustrated by . .
Cited by:
Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction, Banking
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84791
