The plaintiff company had chartered a ship to the defendants. A large sum was now claimed for hire, and a string prima facie case made out. The charterers could not be found but there was evidence of funds at a bank in London. An ex parte application to grant an injunction restraining the charterers from disposing of or removing from the jurisdiction any of the assets which were within the jurisdiction was refused. The company appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court ‘rediscovered’ its ability to make interim asset freezing orders.
Lord Denning MR
 1 WLR 1093
England and Wales
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219680