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 the action’ and the power to order interrogatories did not relate ‘to any matter in question between the applicant and that other party in the cause or matter’. Ackner LJ however said: ‘where the power exists to grant the remedy, there must also be inherent in that power the power to make ancillary orders to make that remedy effective.’ The power in section 45(1) includes the power to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain a party to any proceedings from removing from the jurisdiction or otherwise dealing with assets located within the jurisdiction where that party is, as well as where he is not, domiciled, resident or present within that jurisdiction . . there must be inherent in that power, the power to make all such ancillary orders as appears to the court to be just and convenient, to ensure that the exercise of the Mareva jurisdiction is effective to achieve its purpose.
Ackner LJ, Stephenson LJ, Griffiths LJ
 1 QB 923,  EWCA Civ 8,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 491,  2 All ER 565,  2 WLR 601,  Com LR 50
Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 45
England and Wales
Cited – Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis CA 1975
The plaintiff company had chartered a ship to the defendants. A large sum was now claimed for hire, and a string prima facie case made out. The charterers could not be found but there was evidence of funds at a bank in London. An ex parte . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes Ltd CA 8-Dec-1975
Civil Search Orders possible
The plaintiff manufactured and supplied through the defendants, its English agents, computer components. It had reason to suspect that the defendant was disclosing its trade secrets to competitors. The court considered the effect of a civil search . .
Cited – Mediterranea Reffineria Siciliana Petroli SpA v Mabanaft GmbH CA 2-Jan-1978
The plaintiff sought orders to assist it in tracing the product of a cargo of oil, delivery of which was alleged to have been obtained from the plaintiff without the production of bills of lading, Mr. Justice Mocatta had made a sweeping order . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – London and County Securities Ltd v Caplin ChD 26-May-1978
The court made a Mareva order with ancillary disclosure orders for the purpose of enabling the plaintiffs to trace property acquired by the defendant and so take steps to seize that property if it derived from their assets. . .
Cited – Iraqi Ministry of Defence and Others v Arcepey Shipping Co SA, The Angel Bell 1980
The court considered whether a defendant should be allowed to pay his debts as they fell due despite an asset freezing order.
Held: The Mareva jurisdiction should not ‘improve the position of claimants’. Rather, it should prevent the injustice . .
Cited – A v C (Note) ChD 1980
The plaintiffs said the first defendant had defrauded them of substantial sums, and implicated other defendants. They claimed against five defendants variously for conspiracy to defraud and deceit and for breach of warranty. They also sought to . .
Cited – Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine SA CA 1979
The court gave guidelines for the granting of Mareva injunctions as follows: ‘(i) The plaintiff should make full and frank disclosure of all matters in his knowledge which are material for the judge to know. . (ii) The plaintiff should give . .
Cited – Banker’s Trust v Shapira CA 1980
Enforcement through innocent third party bank
Two forged cheques, each for USD500,000, had been presented by two men and as a result USD1,000,000 had been transferred to accounts in their names. The plaintiff sought to trace assets through the banks involved.
Held: The court approved the . .
Cited – Marriott v Chamberlain CA 26-May-1886
In an action for libel the defendant pleaded that the libel was true. The substance of the libel was that the plaintiff had fabricated a story to the effect that a certain circular letter purporting to be signed by the defendant had been sent round . .
Cited – Blair v Haycock Cattle Co 1917
Cited – Beddow v Beddow CA 1878
The power in the section embraced the grant of an injunction ‘in any case where it would be right or just to do so’. . .
Cited – Rank Film Distributors v Video Information Centre CA 1980
The plaintiff film companies accused the defendants of pirating their films. They obtained Anton Piller orders which required the defendants to permit the plaintiffs to enter their premises to inspect and remove any unauthorised films, and three . .
Cited – Barclay-Johnson v Yuill 1980
The jurisdiction to make an asset freezing injunction applies though the defendant is not a foreigner or foreign based. Its essence is to reduce the risk of the defendant removing his assets from the jurisdiction and so stultifying any judgment . .
Cited – EMI v Pandit ChD 3-Dec-1974
The making of an order allowing the plaintiff’s to execute a search on the other party’s premises is in effect part of the process of discovery. Templeman J discussed the making of such orders ex parte: ‘if it appears that the object of the . .
Cited – Lister and Co v Stubbs CA 1890
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their foreman had received secret commissions which he had invested in land and other investments. They sought interlocutory relief to prevent him dealing with the land and requiring him to bring the other . .
Cited – Rahman (Prince Abdul) bin Turki al Sudairy v AbuTaha CA 1-Jun-1980
Lord Denning, MR said: ‘So I would hold that a Mareva injunction can be granted against a man even though he is based in this country if the circumstances are such that there is a danger of his absconding, or a danger of the assets being removed out . .
Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Cited – Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council (No. 2) CA 1988
When the ITC did not satisfy an arbitral award made against it, the judgment creditor sought to discover where its assets could be found. Application to the Court was made under RSC 0.48 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and under the Court’s inherent . .
Cited – XX and Others v YY and Others ChD 2-Jul-2021
The first defendant applies for an order that the claimants are not entitled to pursue legal action against his lawyers in respect of funds over which the claimants claim a proprietary interest and paid to the first defendant’s lawyers as legal fees . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.183806