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 be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the court in all cases in which it shall appear to the court to be just or convenient.’ The order could be made even though it dealt with assets in which the plaintiff claimed no direct right.
 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509,  1 All ER 213
Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 45(1)
England and Wales
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 – Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc CA 22-Nov-2004
The claimant had obtained judgment against customers of the defendant, and then freezing orders for the accounts. The defendants inadvertently or negligently allowed sums to be transferred from the accounts. The claimants sought repayment by the . .
Cited – A 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.190024