Ashtiani v Kashi: CA 1986

On the grant of a Mareva injunction, the defendant had disclosed assets outside the jurisdiction in bank accounts in Europe. The plaintiff then obtained injunctions relating to those assets. The defendant obtained the discharge of those orders on undertaking not to dispose of assets within the jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. A Mareva injunction must be limited to assets located within the jurisdiction.


Kerr LJ


[1986] 2 All ER 970

Cited by:

CitedBabanaft International Co SA v Bassatne CA 30-Jun-1988
The court considered whether the state in which enforcement of a judgment will take place should be the place where the debt is situated upon which it is sought to execute.
Held: There was nothing to preclude English courts from granting . .
CitedDerby and Co Ltd v Weldon CA 2-Jan-1989
The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and deceit and conspiracy. It sought a world-wide injunction.
Held: A freezing order (Mareva injunction) can be made in respect of assets which were . .
CitedDerby and Co v Weldon (No2) CA 2-Jan-1989
The plaintiff appealed against the refusal of a world-wide Mareva injunction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘We live in a time of rapidly growing commercial and financial sophistication and it behoves the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.449763