Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council: ChD 1987

Millett J said: ‘The ITC contend there is no jurisdiction to make such an order [an order for discovery of assets] in the absence of a Mareva injunction. It is, however, fallacious to reason from the fact that an order for discovery can be made as ancillary to a Mareva injunction to a conclusion that it cannot be made except as ancillary to such an injunction.’

Millett J
[1987] 3 All ER 886, [1987] 1 WLR 1711
England and Wales
Cited by:
At ChD (Affirmed)Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council CA 1988
The court asked the extent to which international law forms part of the law of this country. Nourse LJ said: ‘For up to two and a half centuries it has been generally accepted amongst English judges and jurists that international law forms part of . .
At First InstanceShearson Lehman Brothers Inc v Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd and International Tin Council (Intervener) (No. 2) HL 1988
Article 7(1) of the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972 provided that the ITC ‘shall have the like inviolability of official archives as in accordance with the 1961 Convention Articles is accorded in respect of the . .
See AlsoRe International Tin Council ChD 1987
An order for the winding up of a foreign company operates universally, applies to all the foreign company’s assets and brings into play the full panoply of powers and duties under the Insolvency Act 1986 like any other winding up order. Millett J . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.194458