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 trace the sum of andpound;383,872 paid under a mistake of fact induced by fraud, into an account with a further defendant, a bank. That was the only claim against the bank. They had obtained a Mareva Injunction ex parte, against the fraud defendants, and an injunction restraining them all from disposing of the sum of andpound;383,872 if a lesser sum stood to their credit in accounts with the bank. The court was asked what orders could be made to assist the tracing, including disclosure of bank accounts wherever held.
Held: The court may make orders with the purpose of ascertaining the whereabouts of missing trust funds, even though a Mareva order over bank accounts generally could be oppressive. However without that information, the plaintiff may be unable to volunteer the undertakings expected of him. In limited cases where the court decides to make Mareva orders, it may make such disclosure orders as are necessary to ensure that the Mareva jurisdiction is properly and effectively exercised.
An ancillary disclosure order, made in conjunction with an asset preservation order, relies on the same source of jurisdiction as supports the asset preservation order.
Goff J distinguished between Mareva and conventional interlocutory injunctions in aid of a proprietary claim to a fund, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of the trust fund or what remained of it, quite apart from the Mareva jurisdiction.
Robert Goff J
[1981] QB 956, [1980] 2 All ER 347
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMediterranea 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 . .
CitedLondon 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 by:
CitedA 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 . .
ApprovedBanker’s Trust v Shapira CA 1980
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 . .
CitedJSC 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.416373