Click the case name for better results:

Rasu Maritima SA v Perusahaan (the Pertamina): CA 1978

Section 45 of the 1925 Act gives the court a very wide discretion to grant an injunction. Judges: Lord Denning MR Citations: [1978] 1 QB 644 Statutes: Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 45 Citing: Applied – Beddow v Beddow CA 1878 The power in the section embraced the grant of an injunction ‘in … Continue reading Rasu Maritima SA v Perusahaan (the Pertamina): CA 1978

A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton: CA 6 Feb 1981

The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the documents concerned did not relate ‘to matters in question in … Continue reading A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton: CA 6 Feb 1981

Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA: CA 1 Feb 1975

An ex parte order was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant dispersing his assets. Held: The court granted the ad personam order requested making use of the jurisdiction given to it by the 1925 Act: ‘A mandamus or an injunction may be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the … Continue reading Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA: CA 1 Feb 1975

Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979

An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed the company to have no other assets from which to meet the hoped-for damages award … Continue reading Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979

Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers: HL 26 Jul 1977

The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order. Held: The wide wording of the statute did not mean that the courts had, in effect, limitless powers to grant interlocutory … Continue reading Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers: HL 26 Jul 1977

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts