The plaintiffs had sued in Ireland and obtained a Mareva injunction. That injunction was then first extended to a worldwide injunction, before being set aside. The court could itself to enquire as to damages without deciding whether to enforce the undertaking in damages given by the plaintiff.
Judges:
Neill LJ, Evans LJ, Saville LJ
Citations:
Times 01-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 1067
Statutes:
Rules of the Supreme Court O15 r6, Supreme Court Act 1981 49(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Balkanbank v Taher and Others 19-Feb-1994
Disclosure of legal advice. . .
Cited by:
See also – Balkanbank v Naser Taher and Others QBD 13-Feb-1995
The plaintiff had obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction, giving an undertaking for damages. On its discharge, the defendants sought to make a counterclaim. The defendant company and its subsidiaries sought to counterclaim for their damages suffered . .
See Also – Balkanbank v Taher and Others (No 3) CA 1-Dec-1994
The court will allow a counterclaim on an undertaking after the action had ceased in other Jurisdiction, and the court had power to award damages arising from a Mareva injunction obtained in Ireland. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78114