Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck: PC 24 Jul 1995

Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be in support of an extant cause of action, and cannot be made ‘in the air.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Gazette 13-Sep-1995, Times 11-Aug-1995, [1995] CLC 1090, [1996] 1 AC 284, [1995] UKPC 31, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 417, [1995] 3 WLR 718, [1995] 3 All ER 929

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not FollowedSiskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .

Cited by:

CitedSchmidt v Wong CA 7-Dec-2005
The claimant began a personal injury claim against her landlord. She wanted a freezing order, but began her claim in the County court. When she became aware that the county court had no jurisdiction to grant such an order, he sought to have the . .
CitedFourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
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 . .
CitedWillers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 2) SC 20-Jul-2016
The Court was asked whether and in what circumstances a lower court may follow a decision of the Privy Council which has reached a different conclusion from that of the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal) on an earlier occasion. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.83645